edkyle99 - 23/4/2008 1:07 PMRob Coppinger of Flight Global got a brief quote about this from a Lockheed Martin official. The headline is "Lockheed flight tests a scale-model flyback first-stage booster".http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/04/23/223201/lockheed-flight-tests-a-scale-model-flyback-first-stage.html - Ed Kyle
"I'm holding the [vehicle's] name back for competitive reasons. We're looking at multiple applications, civil, military, exploring lean operations and rapid response," says Space Systems' advanced programmes director, Al Simpson.
hyper_snyper - 23/4/2008 1:55 PMI've always wondered about things like this. Every now and again you hear someone working on something different or unexpected. Then you never hear from them again. Is this one of those things that will be looked at but will never materialize past prototype tests?
OV-106 - 23/4/2008 2:13 PMQuotehyper_snyper - 23/4/2008 1:55 PMI've always wondered about things like this. Every now and again you hear someone working on something different or unexpected. Then you never hear from them again. Is this one of those things that will be looked at but will never materialize past prototype tests?By all accounts this is coming from LockMarts own funding and not any other customer. They've obviously funded this to this point because they see a potential market to the military and others. Continuation of that funding depends on the success of the program and if as it matures their pedicted business case still holds.
...The winged craft soared skyward from a launch rail to an altitude of roughly 3,001 feet (915 meters)......The vehicle flown in December is 8 feet (2.4 meters) long with a wingspan of about 6 feet (1.8 meters)...... the craft's propulsion system is not being revealed at this time...
OV-106 - 25/4/2008 11:57 AMI believe when people were saying hybrid, the meant mixed reusuable/expenable stages.Given the relative size of the operational vehicel, assuming the 1/5 scale is accurate, could mean it's part of a three stage vehicle. The first being something that carries it to altitude, releases it and then this stage returns.
meiza - 25/4/2008 7:08 AMStrange how the wings are so big. Would you really need such in a VTHL booster?Maybe if you have to abort and land with some propellants?
kevin-rf - 25/4/2008 10:25 PMQuotemeiza - 25/4/2008 7:08 AMStrange how the wings are so big. Would you really need such in a VTHL booster?Maybe if you have to abort and land with some propellants?Maybe it needs cross range to land at preselected landing strips down range of the launch site...
Apparently the thing is called 'Revolver'...http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2008/06/lockheed-martins-flyback-first.html
Word Mark REVOLVERGoods and Services IC 012. US 019 021 023 031 035 044. G & S: Space vehicles, namely, rockets. FIRST USE: 20041114. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20051105Standard Characters Claimed Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARKSerial Number 77798846Filing Date August 6, 2009Current Filing Basis 1AOriginal Filing Basis 1APublished for Opposition December 29, 2009Owner (APPLICANT) Lockheed Martin Corporation CORPORATION MARYLAND 6801 Rockledge Dr. Bethesda MARYLAND 208171836Attorney of Record Lisa K. LevineType of Mark TRADEMARKRegister PRINCIPALLive/Dead Indicator LIVE
Some googling turned up a few relevant Lockheed Martin patents, with some rather interesting figures:* 2002 (2003 issue), Reusable flyback rocket booster and method for recovering same: http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=2DsNAAAAEBAJ* 2001 (2002 issue), Reusable booster for the first stage of a launcher: http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=vuIJAAAAEBAJ* 2000 (2002 issue), Fly back booster: http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=HMsJAAAAEBAJ* 2003 (2006 issue), Space transportation system: http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=bCB6AAAAEBAJ*
According to my information, this is not an SLV. More likely an ASat.Ross.
Well, someone is pushing a kerolox engine with no known vehicle that wants it. If it's meant for the NASA HLV, then someone should say so.
/-- Doug Cooke, ESMD: hoping to find multiple users in industry for hydrocarbon engine to be developed in new plan.
Quote from: Antares on 03/07/2010 03:12 amWell, someone is pushing a kerolox engine with no known vehicle that wants it. If it's meant for the NASA HLV, then someone should say so.Interesting note from Doug Cooke's talk at the Goddard Symposium the other day:http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=19195Quote/-- Doug Cooke, ESMD: hoping to find multiple users in industry for hydrocarbon engine to be developed in new plan.
I think nasawatch put a picture of it here..seems it was hiding behind a McD's
Quote from: kraisee on 03/07/2010 03:04 amAccording to my information, this is not an SLV. More likely an ASat.Ross.There are better ways to take out a sat that aren't as expensive and don't create a debris problem.
Nice picture of a wind tunnel model of a flyback booster here:http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a1553afc7-cc1e-4b5e-9a6c-ced39704d348&plc
Quote from: douglas100 on 04/08/2010 09:48 amNice picture of a wind tunnel model of a flyback booster here:http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a1553afc7-cc1e-4b5e-9a6c-ced39704d348&plcFor all the hype, I just can't justify exchanging the mass of those wings for payload from the core or upper stage. Every kilo of extra mass on the booster reduces the payload mass by the same amount.
Is it worth it? IMO, no. Why? Because the object of the launch is to insert payload into orbit, not fly the booster back. The priorities are bass ackwards.
Why? Because the object of the launch is to insert payload into orbit, not fly the booster back. The priorities are bass ackwards.
QuoteWhy? Because the object of the launch is to insert payload into orbit, not fly the booster back. The priorities are bass ackwards.Of course the point of the launch is to place the payload in orbit. The point of the wings is to attempt to reduce the cost of the launch. Whether this will lead to cheaper launches in the future is yet to be proven.
Quote from: douglas100 on 04/09/2010 01:53 pmQuoteWhy? Because the object of the launch is to insert payload into orbit, not fly the booster back. The priorities are bass ackwards.Of course the point of the launch is to place the payload in orbit. The point of the wings is to attempt to reduce the cost of the launch. Whether this will lead to cheaper launches in the future is yet to be proven. The key to this deal really isn't flying the booster back - getting the tanks and structures back - it is engines. It is all about propulsion. No reusable pays unless the engines can turn around almost immediately. (It costs as much or more to turn reusable SSMEs around as it costs to buy and fly one-time use expendable engines). To my knowledge, no such LOX/kerosene engines exist. Someone, somewhere, is surely working on that part of the equation. But will low-cost reusable engines be part of the demonstration? The "rocket-back" approach, BTW, implies lower staging velocities than a "jet-engine-back" method. That means that the upper stage will have to do more work than if an expendable booster is used, costing more. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 04/09/2010 02:20 pmQuote from: douglas100 on 04/09/2010 01:53 pmQuoteWhy? Because the object of the launch is to insert payload into orbit, not fly the booster back. The priorities are bass ackwards.Of course the point of the launch is to place the payload in orbit. The point of the wings is to attempt to reduce the cost of the launch. Whether this will lead to cheaper launches in the future is yet to be proven. The key to this deal really isn't flying the booster back - getting the tanks and structures back - it is engines. It is all about propulsion. No reusable pays unless the engines can turn around almost immediately. (It costs as much or more to turn reusable SSMEs around as it costs to buy and fly one-time use expendable engines). To my knowledge, no such LOX/kerosene engines exist. Someone, somewhere, is surely working on that part of the equation. But will low-cost reusable engines be part of the demonstration? The "rocket-back" approach, BTW, implies lower staging velocities than a "jet-engine-back" method. That means that the upper stage will have to do more work than if an expendable booster is used, costing more. - Ed Kyle I agree that staging velocity will likely be lower than for a fully expendable launch vehicle, but not because it isn't jet-powered.
Like Ed is saying, getting the tankage back, whether by parachute or wings or by magic, isn't nearly as important as getting the engines back. The purpose of the wings is to fly the whole thing back, 95% of which will just get melted as scrap metal - the tankage, because they aren't worth trying to recycle. If you really want to reduce the launch cost *and* you want to focus on the launch vehicle (there are other, better ways to do this), then focus on the engines, not the tanks. Devise a way to disconnect the engines after the propellant is gone and get that "propulsion module" back. That will go a *LOT* further to reducing launch costs than flying back the whole booster. Fly-back boosters are just not worth the effort or the money. It just makes the upper stage less capable because it has to stage earlier and burn longer, resulting, most likely, in *less* IMLEO.
If you can recover the entire booster intact and without considerable wear and tear, you don't have to take it apart, you just check it out like is done for airplanes, mate it to another upperstage/payload, fuel it up, and launch. That's where real cost savings could come from.
The article talked about eventually replacing Atlas and Delta sometime in the 2030's.
No reusable pays unless the engines can turn around almost immediately. (It costs as much or more to turn reusable SSMEs around as it costs to buy and fly one-time use expendable engines). To my knowledge, no such LOX/kerosene engines exist.