Author Topic: "Secret" LockMart launch vehicle prototype  (Read 41381 times)

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
"Secret" LockMart launch vehicle prototype
« on: 04/17/2008 05:02 pm »
Found this kind of interesting.....

http://www.krqe.com/global/story.asp?s=8173339
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
RE: "Secret" LockMart launch vehicle prototype
« Reply #1 on: 04/17/2008 05:10 pm »
hard to get scale from these photos, but its got to be at least few meters on that launch rain
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline josh_simonson

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 504
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Secret" LockMart launch vehicle prototype
« Reply #2 on: 04/17/2008 05:39 pm »
Looks rather like their CEV proposal and also something like a flyback booster.  From the sound of the article it sounds more like it's the orbital vehicle though.

Offline Tergenev

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 126
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Secret" LockMart launch vehicle prototype
« Reply #3 on: 04/17/2008 06:20 pm »
Leonard David at LiveScience has his impressions, and a couple more details about the story at this link .

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
  • Liked: 981
  • Likes Given: 347
Re: "Secret" LockMart launch vehicle prototype
« Reply #4 on: 04/17/2008 06:22 pm »
One vehicle of a bimese system maybe?

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
RE: "Secret" LockMart launch vehicle prototype
« Reply #5 on: 04/17/2008 07:11 pm »
It looks a lot like the FALCON ARES concept shown in the following link, making it a test of a flyback booster concept.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj06/sum06/doggrell.html

My guess is that this subscale, low-altitude test might be a precursor for higher, faster subscale tests.  Then again, the fact that they are showing it on TV may mean that the testing is already finished.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: "Secret" LockMart launch vehicle prototype
« Reply #6 on: 04/17/2008 07:36 pm »
Model rocket.

Nice find!

Offline iamlucky13

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1657
  • Liked: 105
  • Likes Given: 93
Re: "Secret" LockMart launch vehicle prototype
« Reply #7 on: 04/17/2008 07:39 pm »
Nice find Ed.

Your link isn't working for me, but astronautix has more info that pretty well matches what I was thinking:

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/ares.htm

It's almost certainly never intended to be more than suborbital, as pointy wings like that would be terrible from a heat flow standpoint. So it basically amounts an extension of the air launch architecture that Orbital Sciences uses with the Pegasus.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: "Secret" LockMart launch vehicle prototype
« Reply #8 on: 04/17/2008 08:00 pm »
actually, this pic reminds me of the Cal Poly Space students Starbooster config, they flew a rather big model with two flyback RC controlled boosters some time ago, turned them around in 24 hours too.

Unfortunately the links to pics on their site have gone offline but Hobbyspace has news archives and Starbooster Inc site is online still as well.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline PurduesUSAFguy

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 209
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Secret" LockMart launch vehicle prototype
« Reply #9 on: 04/18/2008 11:51 pm »
I hope this points to the Air Force or DARPA getting serious about their 'Hybrid Booster' program. I really wish they would have picked a better name, hybrid to me means solid propellant + liquid oxidizer, not expendable second statge fly back first.

In any event hope this is a sign of things to come.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: "Secret" LockMart launch vehicle prototype
« Reply #10 on: 04/23/2008 05:07 pm »
Rob 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

Offline hyper_snyper

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 728
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: "Secret" LockMart launch vehicle prototype
« Reply #11 on: 04/23/2008 06:55 pm »
Quote
edkyle99 - 23/4/2008  1:07 PM

Rob 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

From that article...

Quote
"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.

I guess this means it is FALCON ARES.

I'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?

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Secret" LockMart launch vehicle prototype
« Reply #12 on: 04/23/2008 07:13 pm »
Quote
hyper_snyper - 23/4/2008  1:55 PM

I'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.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: "Secret" LockMart launch vehicle prototype
« Reply #13 on: 04/23/2008 08:41 pm »
Quote
OV-106 - 23/4/2008  2:13 PM

Quote
hyper_snyper - 23/4/2008  1:55 PM

I'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.

I suspect that the press coverage of the previously hush-hush launch activity had something very much to do with the fact that a local referendum on tax support for the New Mexico spaceport was approaching.  It passed.

Lockheed Martin would have its own reasons to publicize its IR&D activity.  Still, the fact that we've seen this thing tells me that it (at least in this specific variation) is probably already history.  Either Lockheed Martin has finished the IR&D effort, or it has moved on to investigate other alternatives, etc.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 436
RE: "Secret" LockMart launch vehicle prototype
« Reply #14 on: 04/23/2008 10:24 pm »
I'd love to work on stuff like that!

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Secret" LockMart launch vehicle prototype
« Reply #15 on: 04/24/2008 06:02 pm »
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/080424-lockheed-spaceplane-test.html

Some new info as far as I know and it's on space.com (I was shocked also)

This flight was in December and they plan to continue test flights and have signed an MOU with Spaceport America.  I also found it interesting, but space.com may have just got it wrong, that this appearantly falls under the Human Space Flight division in Denver.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline aero313

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 516
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Secret" LockMart launch vehicle prototype
« Reply #16 on: 04/24/2008 06:14 pm »
Quote
...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...

...And Estes isn't talking either...   :laugh:

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: "Secret" LockMart launch vehicle prototype
« Reply #17 on: 04/24/2008 07:09 pm »
Eight feet long with six foot wingspan.  Roughly 1/5th scale model implies full size at only 40 feet long with a 30 foot wingspan.  

The full-scale vehicle does not appear to be a "biggie".    This vehicle would only be in the Falcon 1/Pegasus/Minotaur category, size-wise, making it consistent with the Rapid Response launch concept.  By comparison, an Atlas V CCB is 106 feet long.  An Atlas V strap on booster is 58 feet long.

Lockheed Martin performed a hybrid motor test in 2005 for the Air Force FALCON program.  
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/falcon-lm.htm
Something like that could conceivably work in this application.

- Ed Kyle

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2641
  • South Africa
  • Liked: 949
  • Likes Given: 2056
Re: "Secret" LockMart launch vehicle prototype
« Reply #18 on: 04/25/2008 01:42 am »
Given the low value of the motor as well as its robustness and low empty weight, I don't think flyback is really an option for a hybrid engine. Also, the size and layout of the wings indicates that it is fairly heavy in the tail, indicating a heavy engine. It may be sized for an airbreathing takeoff, but I don't see any fake intakes on the model. Given the fuel weight, the wingspan would have to be quite considerable and it would have quite a takeoff run.

The overall shape and fake TPS colouring also suggest it's designed for fairly high-speed reentry. I doubt whether a hybrid rocket would effectively stage for a 2-launch scenario. So, I reckon it's most likely a high-density liquid propulsion scheme... LOX and Kero, HTP and Kero or some such.

Being "operationally responsive" I guess the thing is designed to be more robust than conventional rockets (making reusability more attractive) and payload integration could be done easily and horizontally in a hangar, with a prepackaged upper stage (maybe this one is a hybrid motor). I haven't read anything more about this so I'm just guessing.

The canards would improve low-speed handling characteristics quite considerably, so it could land at many more airfields.

I can see this being used as a strap-on booster to improve performance, as well. Something like the proposed-but-no-money Baikal flyback booster on the Angara.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Secret" LockMart launch vehicle prototype
« Reply #19 on: 04/25/2008 01:57 am »
I 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.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2641
  • South Africa
  • Liked: 949
  • Likes Given: 2056
Re: "Secret" LockMart launch vehicle prototype
« Reply #20 on: 04/25/2008 06:30 am »
Quote
OV-106 - 25/4/2008  11:57 AM

I 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.

I was actually referring to Ed's link which was of a hybrid motor test. Hybrid is an annoying term; it's been applied to all sorts of things. :laugh:

I agree, it probably is a three-stage vehicle now that you bring it up. Given that they fired it straight up from a rail plus the shape makes me think it's a true flyback first stage as opposed to a souped-up air-launch system.

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: "Secret" LockMart launch vehicle prototype
« Reply #21 on: 04/25/2008 11:08 am »
Strange 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?

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: "Secret" LockMart launch vehicle prototype
« Reply #22 on: 04/25/2008 12:25 pm »
Quote
meiza - 25/4/2008  7:08 AM

Strange 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...
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2641
  • South Africa
  • Liked: 949
  • Likes Given: 2056
Re: "Secret" LockMart launch vehicle prototype
« Reply #23 on: 04/30/2008 05:49 am »
Quote
kevin-rf - 25/4/2008  10:25 PM

Quote
meiza - 25/4/2008  7:08 AM

Strange 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...

My guess is to support the return of the payload but with a propellant dump in the case of an abort. Also, large wings enable more short-runway access (as hinted at by the canards). With regard to the canards, I'm guessing there's more involvement of the control surfaces during re-entry to maintain attitude.

For comparison, the Baikal booster uses a relative small scissor-wing for glide and landing. (The Baikal booster is a proposed drop-in replacement for the Angara CCB).

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/angara.html

I guess the ultimate iteration of this vehicle (LockMart's) would be a trimese spacecraft that could reach orbit; a fully reusable launch system, if and when the economics ever got round to supporting that.

Offline hyper_snyper

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 728
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 22
« Last Edit: 06/19/2008 11:24 pm by hyper_snyper »

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Re: "Secret" LockMart launch vehicle prototype
« Reply #25 on: 03/05/2010 09:10 pm »
Apparently the thing is called 'Revolver'...

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2008/06/lockheed-martins-flyback-first.html

Sorry to resuscitate a 2-year-old thread, but it looks like Lockheed Martin has recently trademarked 'Revolver':

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2010/03/lockheed-trademarks-revolver-f.html

From the USPTO search:
Quote
Word Mark    REVOLVER
Goods and Services   IC 012. US 019 021 023 031 035 044. G & S: Space vehicles, namely, rockets. FIRST USE: 20041114. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20051105
Standard Characters Claimed   
Mark Drawing Code   (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number   77798846
Filing Date   August 6, 2009
Current Filing Basis   1A
Original Filing Basis   1A
Published for Opposition    December 29, 2009
Owner   (APPLICANT) Lockheed Martin Corporation CORPORATION MARYLAND 6801 Rockledge Dr. Bethesda MARYLAND 208171836
Attorney of Record   Lisa K. Levine
Type of Mark   TRADEMARK
Register   PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator   LIVE
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Re: "Secret" LockMart launch vehicle prototype
« Reply #26 on: 03/05/2010 09:30 pm »
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

*
« Last Edit: 03/05/2010 09:47 pm by neilh »
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2173
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: "Secret" LockMart launch vehicle prototype
« Reply #27 on: 03/06/2010 08:45 pm »
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

*

That second one looks like a Baikal clone... thats a breakable patent.

It will be interesting to see the economics of these concepts...
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re:
« Reply #28 on: 03/07/2010 02:55 am »
Hmmm, good bump and good research.  One has to wonder if this has anything to do with all of the kerolox talk in the President's budget.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re:
« Reply #29 on: 03/07/2010 03:02 am »
This predates Obama's "plan" and even the Augustine Commission.  I think it is more likely this is just internal R&D work, possibly as a lead in for the possible Air Force RFI or RFP that is expected for a reusable launch vehicle
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re:
« Reply #30 on: 03/07/2010 03:04 am »
According to my information, this is not an SLV.   More likely an ASat.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re:
« Reply #31 on: 03/07/2010 03:12 am »
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.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re:
« Reply #32 on: 03/07/2010 03:14 am »
According 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.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re:
« Reply #33 on: 03/07/2010 03:15 am »
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.

LOL true, but of course the problem is no one knows why the kerolox engine is being pushed.....
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re:
« Reply #34 on: 03/07/2010 03:29 am »
To give MSFC something to do.  To redevelop the kerolox expertise that has been decimated.

Problem is, those whys solve the people side, but the technical requirements only start flowing at about Level 3 or 2 so far.  Without clear direction, it could be an unusable product or a perennial design churn between factions around the government.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re:
« Reply #35 on: 03/07/2010 03:39 am »
But the reality is this has little to do with NASA directly.  No one, at least here as far as I know, knows for sure what the propellants for this first stage are and LockMart would not "need" NASA to "give them" kerolox technology 10 years from now anyway if they are really serious about this.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Re: "Secret" LockMart launch vehicle prototype
« Reply #36 on: 03/11/2010 04:10 pm »
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.

Interesting note from Doug Cooke's talk at the Goddard Symposium the other day:
http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=19195
Quote
/-- Doug Cooke, ESMD: hoping to find multiple users in industry for hydrocarbon engine to be developed in new plan.
« Last Edit: 03/11/2010 04:11 pm by neilh »
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Secret" LockMart launch vehicle prototype
« Reply #37 on: 03/11/2010 04:18 pm »
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.

Interesting note from Doug Cooke's talk at the Goddard Symposium the other day:
http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=19195
Quote
/-- Doug Cooke, ESMD: hoping to find multiple users in industry for hydrocarbon engine to be developed in new plan.

Well yeah, they have to justify it because it came out of left field. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Online jabe

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1223
  • Liked: 179
  • Likes Given: 12
Re:
« Reply #38 on: 03/11/2010 05:54 pm »
I think nasawatch put a picture of it here..seems it was hiding behind a McD's :)

jb

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re:
« Reply #39 on: 04/01/2010 07:19 am »
I think nasawatch put a picture of it here..seems it was hiding behind a McD's :)

That's the Titan I at NASA Ames. Hardly Top Secret.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re:
« Reply #40 on: 04/07/2010 05:01 pm »
According 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.

I doubt the Asat as it would be too expensive and kinetic kill vehicles are generally frowned up on for good reason.

Instead I say it's more for popup and or once around Earth observation.
One limitation for conventional spy satellites is once you put something up there everyone will soon know about it and it's orbit is very predictable.
Often the target will simply pull a tarp over something they don't want seen before the satellite passes overhead.

Something that can be launched quickly and return after one or two orbits could catch a country like Iran or North Korea off guard before they can hide any activity that would be in violation of treaties.
« Last Edit: 04/07/2010 05:02 pm by Patchouli »

Offline GClark

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 377
  • Liked: 55
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: \
« Reply #41 on: 04/08/2010 08:01 am »
FWIW, my (exceedingly) uneducated guess is that someone(s?) gave LM an advanced peek at yesterdays' AF pre-solicitation for flyback boosters.

Offline douglas100

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Liked: 227
  • Likes Given: 105
Douglas Clark

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: \
« Reply #43 on: 04/09/2010 12:29 pm »
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

For 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.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: \
« Reply #44 on: 04/09/2010 01:08 pm »
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

For 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.
The wings are on the booster, not the upper stage, so the penalty isn't nearly 1:1. If you read the article, it says the upper stage is to be expendable.
Quote
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.
With a very high launch-rate, of course it makes more sense to reuse the spacecraft if it is possible and cheaper per-kg than building and launching a new launch vehicle every time. (This is a somewhat tautological statement...)
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline douglas100

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Liked: 227
  • Likes Given: 105
Re: \
« Reply #45 on: 04/09/2010 01:53 pm »
Quote
Why? 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.
Douglas Clark

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: "Secret" LockMart launch vehicle prototype
« Reply #46 on: 04/09/2010 02:20 pm »
Quote
Why? 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
« Last Edit: 04/09/2010 02:35 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: "Secret" LockMart launch vehicle prototype
« Reply #47 on: 04/09/2010 03:44 pm »
Quote
Why? 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.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: "Secret" LockMart launch vehicle prototype
« Reply #48 on: 04/09/2010 04:17 pm »
Quote
Why? 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.

The use of jet engines allows much, much longer fly-back range than rocket-back (unless this thing is launched from something like a land-bound Baikonur), which implies higher staging velocities.  The other staging velocity determinate is thermal protection system requirements. 

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 04/09/2010 04:20 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re:
« Reply #49 on: 04/09/2010 05:24 pm »
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.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re:
« Reply #50 on: 04/09/2010 05:27 pm »
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.
Reminds me of my "SSME-in-a-lifting-body-pod" idea discussed on another thread.  (rather than a boattail on the bottom of an Ares or Jupiter, put mounting points for 1-4 SSME-pods, each one can be ejected once orbit is reached and glide back down for recovery in the ocean)
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: \
« Reply #51 on: 04/09/2010 06:31 pm »
Clongton, they are trying to recover the entire flyback booster intact. I mean, yeah, if you're going to tear the whole thing apart each time, the tanks aren't worth much. But the cost of a launch vehicle is much more than the sum of its parts. 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.

This was tried on the Shuttle, but by doing it on the booster stage, a lot of things become easier (much lower reentry velocity is a big one, besides not being as mass-sensitive as an upper stage).
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline douglas100

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Liked: 227
  • Likes Given: 105
Re: \
« Reply #52 on: 04/09/2010 06:51 pm »
From Robobeat:
Quote
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.

Agree. the Aviation Week article talks about the Air Force aiming at a 48 hour turnround on the booster and using a low manpower launch crew. Of course it only makes economic sense if there is a high launch rate.
Douglas Clark

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re:
« Reply #53 on: 04/09/2010 07:23 pm »
Or a once arround vehicle that drops something on the way back around... an RICBM
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline douglas100

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Liked: 227
  • Likes Given: 105
Re: \
« Reply #54 on: 04/09/2010 07:26 pm »
The article talked about eventually replacing Atlas and Delta sometime in the 2030's.
Douglas Clark

Offline Nathan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 710
  • Sydney
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 3
Re:
« Reply #55 on: 04/09/2010 07:31 pm »
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.

Why would 95% get melted down as scrap metal. The idea is to have a reusable system that can experience rapid turnaround. The flyback booster can be sized to suit lift target so the loss of performance isn't an apples to apples comparison. ie: RLV has additional performance measures that an expendable cannot achieve including reuse times.
Given finite cash, if we want to go to Mars then we should go to Mars.

Offline JosephB

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 737
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: \
« Reply #56 on: 04/09/2010 08:22 pm »
The article talked about eventually replacing Atlas and Delta sometime in the 2030's.

25 or so years would be a good run for those vehicles.
Maybe by then the money for an exploration architecture will be available (will there ever be?)

Perhaps this RBS will see an Ares V type core? With J-2X upper?
Or how bout a HL-42, J-2X upper, & LFBB? ISS should still be around by then, right? Oh, wait, we’ll still be using Soyuz to get there.

Offline Kim Keller

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 970
  • Not OldSpace, Not NewSpace - I'm ALLSpace
  • Location: Wherever the rockets are
  • Liked: 2419
  • Likes Given: 125
Re:
« Reply #57 on: 04/20/2010 09:13 pm »
Latest AWST article on RBS contained these nuggets:

-Two versions of RBS: a single reusable first stage and expendable cryogenic upper stage for medium-lift missions; two reusable boosters, cryogenic core stage and upper stage for heavy-lift and growth missions
-Reduce launch cost by >50%
-IOC in 2025; Replace EELVs in 2030
-“At lower flight rates, the RBS does very well”
-"At the Air Force’s nominal rate of eight launches a year, “"we get at least a 50% cost saving, and that’s before the cost growth now hitting us.”"
-Business case based on 100-flight booster life, engines replaced every 10 flights
-15 ft. pathfinder to fly in 2013 and demonstrate rocket-back manuevers
-50-60 ft. RBX subscale demonstrator to fly in 2016-17
-Both demonstrators to use existing engines
-Operational RBS to use new-development RP1 engine (Hydrocarbon Boost Program), possibly with NASA partnership
-Plan goes to Space Command for assessment sometime in the next two months

Offline cheesybagel

  • Member
  • Posts: 90
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: "Secret" LockMart launch vehicle prototype
« Reply #58 on: 04/21/2010 07:36 pm »
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.

I seem to remember the SSME was not as expensive per flight anymore ever since they changed the mean time between overhauls (where they need to disassemble the engine to check it out). What was it SSME Block II?

I think most of the costs were elsewhere after engine upgrades.

IIRC RD-170 was designed to be a reusable staged combustion Lox/Kerosene engine. The first Energia launch also had parachutes in the booster stages to recover them for inspection afterward.

Also consider how many times the Falcon 9 first stage has been fired in tests already. Even so called expendable engines have some amount of reusability in them, otherwise they would not survive the necessary bench testing prior to flight.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: "Secret" LockMart launch vehicle prototype
« Reply #59 on: 02/01/2011 03:15 am »
Bump.... Any new info on this?

(I was asking for info on this thread, which is a little off-topic... http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21981.msg686994#msg686994 )
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Tags:
 

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