Author Topic: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program  (Read 419680 times)

Offline e of pi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 723
  • Pittsburgh, PA
  • Liked: 297
  • Likes Given: 406
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #260 on: 11/12/2013 07:21 pm »
The problem is they are only major airframe mfgs left in the US. Douglas, Grumman, GD, Convair (IIRC all capable of M2 airplane design and mfg) are all merged into either them or Northrup Grumman.

If you want something winged and fast from a company with history of building one it's not much of a "competition" is it?  :(
DARPA's pretty clearly not fixated on a winged design, so having "only" three competitors able to handle that design isn't a problem if a VTVL approach can also solve the problem--which it seems like it can. There's certainly enough options for one of them to bear the standard of VTHL or HTHL for this competition. Moreover, as far as them being the only option, I think SNC, XCOR, or Virgin might have something to say about the ability of others outside of the Boeing/LockMart/N-G triumvirate to develop winged platforms. It's clearly not impossible to learn, nor is it the only option DARPA's interested in for this competition.

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1062
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #261 on: 11/12/2013 08:24 pm »
Don't forget Scaled Composites and the Spaceship Company.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #262 on: 11/12/2013 08:36 pm »
DARPA's pretty clearly not fixated on a winged design, so having "only" three competitors able to handle that design isn't a problem if a VTVL approach can also solve the problem--which it seems like it can. There's certainly enough options for one of them to bear the standard of VTHL or HTHL for this competition.
I think you're missing the point. They are all multi $Bn corporations which usually bring substantial overheads to any programme.
Quote
Moreover, as far as them being the only option, I think SNC, XCOR, or Virgin might have something to say about the ability of others outside of the Boeing/LockMart/N-G triumvirate to develop winged platforms. It's clearly not impossible to learn, nor is it the only option DARPA's interested in for this competition.
You may have also noticed I said companies with experience of M2 design. Going up to M3 that list drops to what is now LM and NAA, now part of Boeing.  I'm sure the others you listed are capable but I don't know if they they could do it for the budget and the learning curve.

OTOH We know Spacex built a factory, flew 4 F1's and an F9 for $300m, most of which reached M10 without too much trouble.  My instinct is that VTVL is the way to go, but we will have to see what turns up.
« Last Edit: 11/12/2013 08:37 pm by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline darkbluenine

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 208
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #263 on: 11/13/2013 12:04 am »
XS-1 solicitation (BAA) is out.  Links to industry day presentations on right and bottom.  Formal questions due Nov 22.  Proposals due Jan 16.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=053e4886edc6cb4da120ff436eea7a09&tab=core&_cview=1

Cost sharing is permitted/encouraged but not required per section IIIC.

Offline darkbluenine

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 208
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #264 on: 11/13/2013 04:53 pm »

SpaceNews blurb on XS-1 program.  States that DARPA "will consider 'manned, optionally manned, or unmanned concepts' for the plane" and that 100 reps attended industry day:

DARPA’s XS-1 Experimental Spaceplane Call for Proposals Eyes a 2018 Liftoff

http://www.spacenews.com/article/military-space/38138darpa%E2%80%99s-xs-1-experimental-spaceplane-call-for-proposals-eyes-a-2018

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #265 on: 11/13/2013 08:05 pm »

SpaceNews blurb on XS-1 program.  States that DARPA "will consider 'manned, optionally manned, or unmanned concepts' for the plane" and that 100 reps attended industry day:

DARPA’s XS-1 Experimental Spaceplane Call for Proposals Eyes a 2018 Liftoff

http://www.spacenews.com/article/military-space/38138darpa%E2%80%99s-xs-1-experimental-spaceplane-call-for-proposals-eyes-a-2018
True. Pretty much everything is still an option if you can make a strong case for your approach, even active TPS  :)

The more of the presentations I've read the more I feel the challenge is finding the best existing components and subs systems and integrating them to deliver the result. Personally I suspect the TPS may be a bigger problem, as it's more specialised. My favorite unexploited TPS material is something called Autoclaved Aerated Concrete, which actually has an SG of about 0.3 and is a closed cell inorganic foam. A version of it was proposed by Grumman for the STS TPS, but was heavier than the Lockheed tiles. It looks like it's melting point is about 1600c. They're cheap and easy to machine   :(

My instinct is it will be VTVL and I have wondered how well this will accommodate the testing of hypersonic aircraft ideas, however I think that's a secondary issue.  :(
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2160
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 621
  • Likes Given: 2140
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #266 on: 11/13/2013 09:41 pm »
Sponable's overview presentation includes a government reference X plane. It launches vertically using two Merlin engines, glides back to base using small wings, and (presumably) lands horizontally.

Unrelated to the above here are some interesting points in the Q&A:
Quote
3. Question: In regard to critical technology risk reduction awards. Are you open to
funding upper stage propulsion, or are you only looking to fund spaceplane propulsion
as part of Phase I?
Answer: We are willing to transition relatively mature propulsion systems to support
Phase II/III. This can be with the spaceplane vehicle or with the upper stage.
4. Question: Jess suggested that all subsystem technologies would be Government
intellectual property (IP). If we propose a concept that employs subsystem technologies
developed at private expense that we retain IP rights to, does that disadvantage our
proposal?
Answer: The extent to which IP rights will potentially impact the Government’s ability
to transition technology will be evaluated. However, the inclusion of certain subsystem
technologies developed at private expense does not necessarily mean that transition
will be impeded. In general, if the Government pays for the development of a concept,
the Government obtains Unlimited Rights. If you pay for its development the
Government receives Limited/Restricted Rights. For concepts developed with mixed
Government/private funding the Government receives Government Purpose Rights.
See Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 227 for more
information.
...
10. Question: There are reusable ground launch booster systems in development that will
lower the cost of space launch. What is the need for a Mach 10 spaceplane v.s a low
cost ground launched booster concept with a recoverable first stage?
Answer: The XS-1 will be a low-cost recoverable booster concept. The rationale for the
Mach 10 requirement was provided in the presentations, including the potential to
dramatically lower launch costs. Winners of the Phase I contract will be eligible to
recommend adjustments to the stated requirements.
...
15. Question: How much of the system must be reflown? For example, is it acceptable if
the proposed approach swaps out engine parts (pumps, bells), TPS, whole engines
(solids), tanks, etc. within the time and cost constraints?
Answer: XS-1 is a reusable vehicle. The removal and replacement of parts is acceptable
as long as it meets the cost and time constraints for the program, and is fully justified in
the proposal.
« Last Edit: 11/14/2013 04:43 pm by deltaV »

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #267 on: 11/13/2013 10:37 pm »
My instinct is it will be VTVL and I have wondered how well this will accommodate the testing of hypersonic aircraft ideas, however I think that's a secondary issue.  :(

They're going to give out four Phase 1s so long as they get enough good proposals. I'm almost positive you're going to get at least one VTVL, one VTHL, and possibly one either HTHL or AirLaunched/HL.

For all of them, he specifically mentioned the hypersonic testing could be done via a separate, deployable free-flyer. Basically you use this vehicle as a cheap booster to get you up to Mach 10, and then your actual test vehicle separates and does the hypersonic cruise flight demo, while your XS-1 booster slows down (either retrobraking or quick decelleration via TPS).

~Jon

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2160
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 621
  • Likes Given: 2140
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #268 on: 11/14/2013 12:15 am »
From the overview slides there's a graph of various launcher price per pound vs launcher mass to orbit. Falcon 9 is substantially below the trendline and does not appear to be involved in the calculation of the trendline. I estimate the trendline given in that chart to be roughly y = (x/1749)^-0.4476 where x is the mass to orbit in klb and y is the cost in k$ per lb.  Note that the -0.4476 is a unitless constant. The significant of the number 1749 is that's the estimated mass to orbit (in klb) where the trendline reaches a thousand $ per lb. The metric equivalent works out to 4629 tonnes to orbit (~40 times SLS or Saturn V) having an estimated cost of 1 k$ / kg.

Plugging in x=3000 klb we get y= 17 k$/lb, or a total launch cost of $52 million.  I suspect they got the $5 million per flight goal by dividing this trendline value by 10 (an order of magnitude) and then rounding.

-----

In the contracting slides:
Quote
Evaluation Criteria
In Descending Order of Importance:
• Overall Scientific and Technical Merit
• Potential Contribution and Relevance to the DARPA Mission, including
Plans to Accomplish Technology Transition
• Proposer’s Capabilities and/or Related Expertise
• Cost Realism
• Schedule Realism

I'm surprised cost realism is a low priority.

----------

The trendline cost formula discussed above gives a cost of $156 million for 10 tonnes to orbit. I wonder if DARPA would be interested in funding Falcon 9R if it's a 10x improvement on trend (i.e. < $15M per 10 tonne launch) but doesn't meet the stated $5M goal. IMHO DARPA should have made the max cost a function of amount to LEO so that contractors have more flexibility as to sizing.

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1062
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #269 on: 11/14/2013 01:41 pm »
I might be wrong, but think for DARPA this program is more about developing the technology than about operational services.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #270 on: 11/15/2013 07:22 am »
They're going to give out four Phase 1s so long as they get enough good proposals. I'm almost positive you're going to get at least one VTVL, one VTHL, and possibly one either HTHL or AirLaunched/HL.
I'd not really considered VTHL but that is the other launch mode that has worked. I guess I just felt it was something that had had no use outside of NASA, but you're right it does have quite a bit of flight experience.
I can sort of see air launch but I'd say HTHL is the real long shot. I'd like to see Scaled and Xcorp have a go. Xcorp certainly has the ambition for M10 (but that 3000lb minimum payload would just make it so much bigger) and I think Scaled would like to but hitting M10 (even for a little while) is going to need a fairly serious TPS upgrade to anything remotely SS2 like. :(
[edit. OTOH they do have WK2 as a launch vehicle, but that brings in how this meshes with their involvement with Stratolaunch]

Quote
For all of them, he specifically mentioned the hypersonic testing could be done via a separate, deployable free-flyer. Basically you use this vehicle as a cheap booster to get you up to Mach 10, and then your actual test vehicle separates and does the hypersonic cruise flight demo, while your XS-1 booster slows down (either retrobraking or quick decelleration via TPS).
Understood. that suggests it can be (mostly) treated as part of the "upper stage" design problem

From the overview slides there's a graph of various launcher price per pound vs launcher mass to orbit. Falcon 9 is substantially below the trendline and does not appear to be involved in the calculation of the trendline. I estimate the trendline given in that chart to be roughly y = (x/1749)^-0.4476 where x is the mass to orbit in klb and y is the cost in k$ per lb.  Note that the -0.4476 is a unitless constant. The significant of the number 1749 is that's the estimated mass to orbit (in klb) where the trendline reaches a thousand $ per lb. The metric equivalent works out to 4629 tonnes to orbit (~40 times SLS or Saturn V) having an estimated cost of 1 k$ / kg.

Plugging in x=3000 klb we get y= 17 k$/lb, or a total launch cost of $52 million.  I suspect they got the $5 million per flight goal by dividing this trendline value by 10 (an order of magnitude) and then rounding.

-----

In the contracting slides:
Quote
Evaluation Criteria
In Descending Order of Importance:
• Overall Scientific and Technical Merit
• Potential Contribution and Relevance to the DARPA Mission, including
Plans to Accomplish Technology Transition
• Proposer’s Capabilities and/or Related Expertise
• Cost Realism
• Schedule Realism

I'm surprised cost realism is a low priority.

----------

The trendline cost formula discussed above gives a cost of $156 million for 10 tonnes to orbit. I wonder if DARPA would be interested in funding Falcon 9R if it's a 10x improvement on trend (i.e. < $15M per 10 tonne launch) but doesn't meet the stated $5M goal. IMHO DARPA should have made the max cost a function of amount to LEO so that contractors have more flexibility as to sizing.
Good points.

However I'd suggest you re-check your "equivalent" in metric units. I make 1749 klb give a metric result that's 5.8x bigger. That's a large factor.

Note that Musk has said FH can achieve 1000$/lb with a flight rate of > 4 flights a year. I'd agree that Spacex have probably been treated as an outlier for this line.

I might be wrong, but think for DARPA this program is more about developing the technology than about operational services.
You're correct. Although it's not that obvious Sponable does say that it's the technologythey want to transfer to the private sector, rather than an actual vehicle. The vehicle is to prove it can be done, which is obviously the best way to show investors that it's possible. That would allow things like "pre-used" parts for the test vehicle and other cost cutting measures to be possible.

Likewise the 10 flights in 10 days looks less like an endurance test and more like a (short) flight test programmer of fairly rapidly expanding the operating envelope.

« Last Edit: 11/15/2013 07:58 am by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2160
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 621
  • Likes Given: 2140
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #271 on: 11/15/2013 12:28 pm »
However I'd suggest you re-check your "equivalent" in metric units. I make 1749 klb give a metric result that's 5.8x bigger. That's a large factor.

Converting to metric in this case is more complicated than just dividing by 2.2 since the units of both x and y change. I'm pretty sure I did it right. If you disagree state an example where the two versions give different results.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #272 on: 11/15/2013 04:26 pm »
I can sort of see air launch but I'd say HTHL is the real long shot. I'd like to see Scaled and Xcorp have a go.

John, sorry for the pedantic nit, but it's XCOR (all caps, no "p"), not Xcor or Xcorp. They're picky about that. :-)

~Jon

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #273 on: 11/15/2013 04:30 pm »
I might be wrong, but think for DARPA this program is more about developing the technology than about operational services.

Yes and no. They want to demonstrate the technology, but they also want to make sure it transitions into the market and doesn't end up as a dead-end. DARPA only has $2.8B/yr to play with (that's less than the SLS/Orion budget for NASA), and most of that goes to non-space military needs. So when they have a space project, they really want to try and use it to enable new operational capabilities--even if the demo unit itself isn't commercially useful, they want a clear story to how it leads to either new military operational capabilities (typically), or in this case, new commercial operations. You can propose whatever you want, but if you don't show how to transition this into a commercial operation, your proposal is unlikely to get high marks.

~Jon

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #274 on: 11/16/2013 06:30 am »
John, sorry for the pedantic nit, but it's XCOR (all caps, no "p"), not Xcor or Xcorp. They're picky about that. :-)
Noted. It's been a while and details fade.  :)
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #275 on: 11/24/2013 05:00 pm »
Aviation Week has updated, and the DARPA reference design is for an F-15 sized airframe with two Merlin 1D engines.

http://www.aviationweek.com/awmobile/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_11_21_2013_p0-639636.xml

DM

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1062
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #276 on: 11/25/2013 07:03 pm »
So much about there being no market for small payload RLVs...

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #277 on: 11/25/2013 08:18 pm »
So much about there being no market for small payload RLVs...

Umm...that's still an open question isn't it? This is more a way of providing supply of small payload RLVs, doesn't prove there's actually demand for them (though that's obviously the hope!)

~Jon

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1062
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #278 on: 11/25/2013 08:40 pm »
So much about there being no market for small payload RLVs...
Umm...that's still an open question isn't it? This is more a way of providing supply of small payload RLVs, doesn't prove there's actually demand for them (though that's obviously the hope!)
~Jon
Well DARPA seems to think so...

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #279 on: 11/25/2013 09:33 pm »
So much about there being no market for small payload RLVs...
Umm...that's still an open question isn't it? This is more a way of providing supply of small payload RLVs, doesn't prove there's actually demand for them (though that's obviously the hope!)
~Jon
Well DARPA seems to think so...

Sure. So do I. But what we think does not yet constitute proof of the existence of said market. :-)

~Jon

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0