Author Topic: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program  (Read 419589 times)

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1062
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #280 on: 11/26/2013 01:59 pm »

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

~Jon
True, but I think it is a strong indicator.

Offline a_langwich

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #281 on: 12/01/2013 06:03 pm »

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

~Jon
True, but I think it is a strong indicator.

It's a lot weaker an indication than saying USAF would be buying the project after it finishes.  DARPA doesn't do anything with market studies, nor do they deal that much with market forces outside the DoD area.

Having said that, I don't think anybody would deny that there would likely be a market if somebody hits a price point about 1/10th the going market rate for launch, with a capability for re-use, rapid turnaround, and all the other bells and whistles. 

If you asked me was there a large market for diesel-powered cars in the US, I'd say no, but if diesel prices were thirty cents a gallon while gasoline prices were unchanged, well then, yes I do believe there would be a market.  Natural gas is doing something like that, though not yet in the car market, with only a factor of two change in price.   

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #282 on: 12/02/2013 01:07 am »
Having said that, I don't think anybody would deny that there would likely be a market if somebody hits a price point about 1/10th the going market rate for launch, with a capability for re-use, rapid turnaround, and all the other bells and whistles. 

You'd probably still have a small but steady market at 80% of the overall launch costs by eating Pegasus's lunch.

But beyond all their larger goals, it sounds like what DARPA very specifically wants is a cheap, rapidly reusable rocket plane, wings optional. That's what they are paying for, and that's what the proposals will be. If any of the proposals works well, then maybe something will end up in orbit. But that's not the immediate goal.
« Last Edit: 12/02/2013 01:08 am by simonbp »

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #283 on: 12/02/2013 01:49 am »
It sure sounds like they're trying to do exactly the same thing Falcon 9R is trying to do -- make a reusable launch vehicle to drastically lower the cost of payloads to LEO.  Falcon 9R isn't there yet, but it's pretty far along that road.  And here comes DARPA to start from scratch trying for essentially the same goal.

I think DARPA is behind the curve in this case.

Online butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2399
  • Liked: 1693
  • Likes Given: 598
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #284 on: 12/02/2013 02:12 am »
So F9-R vs. XS-1 will be the ultimate vertical vs. horizontal landing showdown for reusable first stages. XS-1 will have a considerably smaller payload than F9-R. The question is how well the competing landing methods perform given their different thrust classes.

DARPA is only behind the curve if F9-R is the more efficient design. As the first reusable booster stage seems to be tip-toeing ever closer to reality, using a vertical-landing design, now is the time to benchmark it against a horizontal-landing alternative. Either show that the horizontal lander is superior, or help confirm that the vertical-landing F9-R is the most effective design at this time.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #285 on: 12/02/2013 02:36 am »
My understanding is the DARPA XS-1 RFP doesn't actually require the proposals to use horizontal landing.  The reference is a vertical launch, horizontal landing vehicle, but that's just a reference.  The actual requirements could be met as easily by a vehicle that does horizontal launch and landing, or vertical launch and landing.

In fact, as far as I can tell, the first stage of Falcon 9R will meet all the requirements of the XS-1 RFP, if it works as SpaceX plans for it to work.

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #286 on: 12/02/2013 03:25 am »
In fact, as far as I can tell, the first stage of Falcon 9R will meet all the requirements of the XS-1 RFP, if it works as SpaceX plans for it to work.

Yes, but the more interesting part is that it might spawn a genuine competitor to F9R. And that's the best thing that could happen.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #287 on: 12/02/2013 03:32 am »
In fact, as far as I can tell, the first stage of Falcon 9R will meet all the requirements of the XS-1 RFP, if it works as SpaceX plans for it to work.

Yes, but the more interesting part is that it might spawn a genuine competitor to F9R. And that's the best thing that could happen.

I'm all for competition for F9R.  I think that will happen by itself as soon as F9R is successful, if it is successful.  If F9R really can make reusable launch cheap, every other launch provider in the world will scramble to match it, or go out of business.  Some new businesses will form to do the same thing.  Some of the attempts to match it will fail, but eventually some will succeed.  And, more importantly, bringing down the price of launch will in the long run greatly increase demand, which will eventually support more than one competitor in the space.

It's just a little strange for DARPA to be in the role of trying to bring up a competitor to an existing commercial program.  I don't remember DARPA ever doing that before.  Generally, they are funding research into new areas that wouldn't be explored if DARPA weren't funding them, not me-too projects playing catch-up with commercial R&D.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #288 on: 12/02/2013 02:13 pm »
So F9-R vs. XS-1 will be the ultimate vertical vs. horizontal landing showdown for reusable first stages. XS-1 will have a considerably smaller payload than F9-R. The question is how well the competing landing methods perform given their different thrust classes.
XS-1 does not require HL. In fact, an F9-R approach was shown as acceptable. I think that here the actual difference is a market appreciation. DARPA assumes that a cheap launcher needs cheap payloads. Thus, the smaller the payload and the launch ticket (total amount of dollars) is what will allow for the demand to be there.
SpaceX and Bigelow, on the contrary, seems to think that humans are the cheapest payload there is. Of course SpaceX is betting on slashing a 30% of the launch cost to keep a good fraction of current market (plus some small increase). While DARPA want orders of magnitude more launches and thus need orders of magnitude more payloads.
Just look at current market. At the current 50kSD/U to 100kUSD/U they are launching cubesats in the 10s. At 10k, they would probably launch in the 100s.

Offline a_langwich

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #289 on: 12/02/2013 03:19 pm »
You'd probably still have a small but steady market at 80% of the overall launch costs by eating Pegasus's lunch.

If your business strategy is eating Pegasus's lunch, I predict a lot of hunger in your future.

Offline a_langwich

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #290 on: 12/02/2013 03:40 pm »
In fact, as far as I can tell, the first stage of Falcon 9R will meet all the requirements of the XS-1 RFP, if it works as SpaceX plans for it to work.

If you read back over the thread, this has come up before.  Falcon 9R does not meet the cost per launch criteria, nor would it I believe even if it were being reused, based on the statements Musk/Shotwell have made about the relative costs of the stages and how much they plan to save.  You would have to assume reuse beyond what the 9R design has available right now.  I think Musk has talked about launching every day, but that clearly is not going to happen before the DARPA program is history, and it probably won't be a Falcon 9R launching when it does. 

I think, from what Jon has said, DARPA is actually looking for a hypersonic testbed launcher out of this, which means Mach 10 in the atmosphere (on a non-orbital flight, that is, this is a separate requirement).  That would require a fair amount of software development for a radically different trajectory and throttling scheme, and perhaps some structural strengthening.

Offline a_langwich

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #291 on: 12/02/2013 03:54 pm »

I think that here the actual difference is a market appreciation. DARPA assumes that a cheap launcher needs cheap payloads. Thus, the smaller the payload and the launch ticket (total amount of dollars) is what will allow for the demand to be there.
SpaceX and Bigelow, on the contrary, seems to think that humans are the cheapest payload there is. Of course SpaceX is betting on slashing a 30% of the launch cost to keep a good fraction of current market (plus some small increase). While DARPA want orders of magnitude more launches and thus need orders of magnitude more payloads.
Just look at current market. At the current 50kSD/U to 100kUSD/U they are launching cubesats in the 10s. At 10k, they would probably launch in the 100s.

I think I agree with you, though I'm not sure about the wording.  Not so much that humans are the cheapest payload, but the payloads (along with large satellites) that will attract the most money.  That is, "the big money" is to be made by making cheap rockets for larger payloads, not cheap rockets for small payloads like DARPA has in mind.  Given that SpaceX has offered a cheap rocket for smaller payloads (Falcon 1/e), though granted not as cheap as DARPA's aim, they may have some insight into where the money is to be found.

I doubt DARPA cares about that.  That may be "the big money," but DARPA has a different need here, and there may still be profit for a smaller player in the small/micro/nano market.  IF they can achieve a cost/price down around the target of this program. 

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #292 on: 12/02/2013 04:54 pm »
You've got to think about how much would a 100kg satellite cost (doubt it less than 10M). So, if you want to make a vehicle that needs 200 launches per year to justify it's infrastructure, I don't really know anything but humans and cubesats that could need that many launches.
Cubesats because the overall amount of money is "low", and humans because you design a reusable crew vehicle and fly it as many times as you have clients.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #293 on: 12/02/2013 05:09 pm »
You've got to think about how much would a 100kg satellite cost (doubt it less than 10M).
Just to note, if you scale up from average cubesat project budgets to a 100kg range you'll come to a few million number. a 6U cubesat is 12kg. Of course, costs dont scale lineraly with weight/volume.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #294 on: 12/02/2013 05:51 pm »
In fact, as far as I can tell, the first stage of Falcon 9R will meet all the requirements of the XS-1 RFP, if it works as SpaceX plans for it to work.

If you read back over the thread, this has come up before.  Falcon 9R does not meet the cost per launch criteria, nor would it I believe even if it were being reused, based on the statements Musk/Shotwell have made about the relative costs of the stages and how much they plan to save.

I didn't say F9R.  I said the F9R first stage.  All the statements from Musk/Shotwell about costs have been with first stage re-use but the current F9 upper stage.

There's no reason to believe that the first stage won't meet the cost requirements of this RFP.

You would have to assume reuse beyond what the 9R design has available right now.

Actually, you'd just have to put the small, cheap upper stage DARPA envisions on top of F9R's first stage.  It wouldn't have the capacity of the full F9R stack, but that's not what DARPA's asking for.  If such a cheap upper stage can work with any other contender, it can work with F9R's first stage.

I think Musk has talked about launching every day, but that clearly is not going to happen before the DARPA program is history, and it probably won't be a Falcon 9R launching when it does. 

I don't see any reason the F9R first stage (again, just the stage, not the rest of the F9R stack) couldn't be launching every day in that time frame.  It's at least as likely as any other proposal, because SpaceX has been working on it for quite a while now and they have real hardware flying already.

I think, from what Jon has said, DARPA is actually looking for a hypersonic testbed launcher out of this, which means Mach 10 in the atmosphere (on a non-orbital flight, that is, this is a separate requirement).  That would require a fair amount of software development for a radically different trajectory and throttling scheme, and perhaps some structural strengthening.

My understanding is the RFP just says Mach 10, it doesn't say in the atmosphere or out of it.  Is that wrong?  If they really mean Mach 10 in the atmosphere, F9R's first stage is definitely out.

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 #295 on: 12/02/2013 09:25 pm »
I think, from what Jon has said, DARPA is actually looking for a hypersonic testbed launcher out of this, which means Mach 10 in the atmosphere (on a non-orbital flight, that is, this is a separate requirement).  That would require a fair amount of software development for a radically different trajectory and throttling scheme, and perhaps some structural strengthening.

They were actually pretty clear that they were fine with a hypersonics testbed launcher that deployed a separate hypersonics test free-flyer. That would enable you with boostback/retrobraking to keep the in-atmosphere max velocity of the XS-1 stage well below Mach 10.

~Jon

Offline a_langwich

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #296 on: 12/03/2013 03:54 pm »
I think, from what Jon has said, DARPA is actually looking for a hypersonic testbed launcher out of this, which means Mach 10 in the atmosphere (on a non-orbital flight, that is, this is a separate requirement).  That would require a fair amount of software development for a radically different trajectory and throttling scheme, and perhaps some structural strengthening.

They were actually pretty clear that they were fine with a hypersonics testbed launcher that deployed a separate hypersonics test free-flyer. That would enable you with boostback/retrobraking to keep the in-atmosphere max velocity of the XS-1 stage well below Mach 10.

~Jon

Could you elaborate on the flight profile you have in mind?  Are you saying the first stage lofts vertically, out of the atmosphere, like an existing launch, all the way to Mach 10, and then the hypersonic testbed deploys and points down back into the atmosphere?  If they were testing a hypersonic airbreather--is there any other reason for a hypersonic testbed?--they would have to wait and measure atmospheric density (or altitude?) to determine when there was enough atmosphere again to try lighting the engine?

For a profile like that, seems like a Minuteman/Peacekeeper/Trident body could do the job.  I guess too expensive?

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 #297 on: 12/03/2013 05:28 pm »
Could you elaborate on the flight profile you have in mind?  Are you saying the first stage lofts vertically, out of the atmosphere, like an existing launch, all the way to Mach 10, and then the hypersonic testbed deploys and points down back into the atmosphere?  If they were testing a hypersonic airbreather--is there any other reason for a hypersonic testbed?--they would have to wait and measure atmospheric density (or altitude?) to determine when there was enough atmosphere again to try lighting the engine?

This is more or less what I had in mind--and they actually had a slide in their presentation they gave at the industry day that showed this approach compared to using the stage itself as the testbed. You get more time at hypersonic speeds this way, and have a lot more control over the testbed design than you do if you try to fly it integrated onto the XS-1 stage (IMO).

Quote
For a profile like that, seems like a Minuteman/Peacekeeper/Trident body could do the job.  I guess too expensive?

Bingo! One of the points of this program is to develop a much lower cost way of getting hypersonic testbeds up to hypersonic speeds.

~Jon

Offline a_langwich

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #298 on: 12/03/2013 06:34 pm »
In fact, as far as I can tell, the first stage of Falcon 9R will meet all the requirements of the XS-1 RFP, if it works as SpaceX plans for it to work.

If you read back over the thread, this has come up before.  Falcon 9R does not meet the cost per launch criteria, nor would it I believe even if it were being reused, based on the statements Musk/Shotwell have made about the relative costs of the stages and how much they plan to save.

I didn't say F9R.  I said the F9R first stage.  All the statements from Musk/Shotwell about costs have been with first stage re-use but the current F9 upper stage.

There's no reason to believe that the first stage won't meet the cost requirements of this RFP.

The quote was that the first stage represents three-quarters of the Falcon 9 cost.  The cost of a Falcon 9 launch is ~$60 million.  Three-quarters that is ~$45 million.

There is a profit margin in that; some people have assumed 50%, which is excessive--this isn't a Tickle-Me-Elmo doll, and we aren't considering only raw material cost or parts cost, but the entire cost.  Aerospace companies don't generally achieve 50% profit margins, and certainly not companies underbidding other competitors by 40%.  I'll be very generous and say 25%.  That's ~$33 million cost for the F9 first stage.  (This assumes DARPA is willing to take a $5 million representing the competitor's "cost," and not a $5 million cost-to-the-customer.  That's the most conservative assumption.  If they want the latter, then these calculations get much worse for the F9R.)

That's before re-use, of course.  I believe I read a quote, but I can't find it now, where Musk or Shotwell said they were hoping to save about 25% of the cost of the first stage by re-use.  That would get you to ~$24 million, or nearly 5x the target DARPA is asking. 

That's why I say the F9R doesn't meet the cost goal. 


[The short reply Ends Here.]


But maybe I have garbled the quote.  Maybe they can do better, and soon before this DARPA program ends.  To reach DARPA's price target, the first stage would have to be reused 6.5x.  But that assumes the first stage lands, untouched and unfired, back on the factory floor in Hawthorne, just like it was manufactured.  Obviously not a good assumption.  It has to be recovered, returned to the factory, refurbished.  Some of the parts will have to be replaced, like seals for example, even if the stage didn't suffer the usual "slings and arrows" during the flight.  A lot of NDE inspections and touch-up work will be required to have confidence in the rest.

Something analogous to Amdahl's Law in computing applies here.  Basically, even assuming infinite re-use, the fixed costs of refurbishing dramatically limit your overall gains.  Let's assume the cost of refurbishing is just 10% of the total stage cost.  That would be $3.3 million.  Now you have $1.7 million left of your $5 million, that will be the reused stage cost.  That means you would need to reuse each Falcon 9R eighteen times (18x) to meet the cost target. 

Maybe I'm just a pessimistic gloom-and-doomer, and those Merlin 1D's can easily be reused 18x and more.  Now consider sensitivities...I assumed the cost of refurbishing was 10% of the cost of a new stage.  Maybe you could do it for 5%; that would mean you would only have to reuse each first stage about 10x.  Or maybe it would take 15%?  That would require an infinite number of reuses.  If refurbishment cost 20% of a new stage, it would not be possible to meet the price target even with infinite reuse. 

A second assumption was that DARPA would accept a cost-to-SpaceX of $5 million to meet the requirement, and that SpaceX had a 25% profit margin on their current price.  What if DARPA wouldn't accept that, or SpaceX was actually not really seeing a profit on their current price?  We'd have to use $45 million as the current stage price.  At 10% refurb costs, we'd have to reuse 90x to make the goal!  At 5% refurb costs, 20x reuses.  At 11% refurb costs, reuses have to become infinite, and above that we can't reach the $5 million target.

All of this is basic, I guess, and I don't want to belabor the Point*, I just thought a little trip down Numbers Lane might be a helpful reminder on the economics of reusability.

*The Point, which was to show that I believe there ARE reasons to believe the F9R first stage doesn't meet the cost requirements of this RFP.  YMMV.

I do believe Musk plans/hopes for daily launches at some point, and plans airplane-like reusability.  But that isn't achieved just by mentioning you hope to do it, and the Falcon 9R is just the first step toward that goal.  My judgment, and again YMMV and apparently does, is that several more steps will be required before that goal is reached.


Offline darkbluenine

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 208
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #299 on: 12/03/2013 07:12 pm »
If Bezos is willing to share (and it looks like he is in Meyerson's comment below) and the overall XS-1 system can maintain 24-hour turnarounds while tolerating likely LH2 vapor leaks somewhere, the BE-3 is looking like a good, fairly reusable building block for XS-1:

Quote
Blue Origin reached a key milestone in the development of the liquid-fueled BE-3 engine successfully demonstrating deep throttle, full power, long-duration and reliable restart all in a single-test sequence...

The test demonstrated a full mission duty cycle, mimicking flight of the New Shepard vehicle by thrusting at 110,000 pounds in a 145-second boost phase, shutting down for approximately four and a half minutes to simulate coast through apogee, then restarting and throttling down to 25,000 pounds thrust to simulate controlled vertical landing. To date, the BE-3 has demonstrated more than 160 starts and 9,100 seconds of operation at Blue Origin's test facility near Van Horn, Texas...

... the BE-3 features a "tap-off" design, in which the main chamber combustion gases are used to power the engine's turbopumps. Tap-off is particularly well-suited to human spaceflight because of its single combustion chamber and graceful shutdown mode...

... Rob Meyerson, president and program manager of Blue Origin. "Given its high-performance, low cost, and reusability the BE-3 is well suited for boost, upper-stage and in-space applications on both government and commercial launch systems [emphasis added]."

http://spaceref.biz/2013/12/blue-origin-debuts-the-american-made-be-3-liquid-hydrogen-rocket-engine.html

Quote
Test work building up to the full-cycle BE-3 test in November was conducted over nine months and included 160 starts and 9,100 sec. of engine operation. “That equates to a test every two days and sometimes was actually three or four tests per day [emphasis added],” Meyerson says.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_12_03_2013_p0-642524.xml
« Last Edit: 12/03/2013 07:51 pm by darkbluenine »

Tags:
 

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