Author Topic: XCOR and the Lynx rocket  (Read 333172 times)

Offline Gliderflyer

Re: XCOR and the Lynx rocket
« Reply #1100 on: 04/07/2017 04:07 AM »
ULA has the 5H25 engine and hydrogen pump on display at their Space Symposium booth:

All that hard work developing the engine and piston pump and they end up a permanent part of a ULA static display?!??  That can't be a good thing for the Lynx program..  :(
Easy on the doom and gloom ;). The 5H25 was a development engine that we tested in 2015, and while the technology is similar, it isn't part of the Lynx program. This engine and pump were built for ULA as a subscale demonstrator for the 8H21. Also, as I understand it, the hardware isn't a permanent display and we sent it to them just for the conference.
I tried it at home

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7318
  • N. California
  • Liked: 3666
  • Likes Given: 775
Re: XCOR and the Lynx rocket
« Reply #1101 on: 04/07/2017 04:13 AM »
ULA has the 5H25 engine and hydrogen pump on display at their Space Symposium booth:

All that hard work developing the engine and piston pump and they end up a permanent part of a ULA static display?!??  That can't be a good thing for the Lynx program..  :(

The Lynx didn't use Hydrogen - it had Kerosene and LOX pumps IIRC.

EDIT:
You know what, that was bad form.   The Lynx DOESN'T use Hydrogen.
« Last Edit: 04/07/2017 04:15 AM by meekGee »
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: XCOR and the Lynx rocket
« Reply #1102 on: 04/07/2017 04:36 AM »
ULA has the 5H25 engine and hydrogen pump on display at their Space Symposium booth:

All that hard work developing the engine and piston pump and they end up a permanent part of a ULA static display?!??  That can't be a good thing for the Lynx program..  :(
Easy on the doom and gloom ;). The 5H25 was a development engine that we tested in 2015, and while the technology is similar, it isn't part of the Lynx program. This engine and pump were built for ULA as a subscale demonstrator for the 8H21. Also, as I understand it, the hardware isn't a permanent display and we sent it to them just for the conference.
How's it going with 8H21, are you making good progress?. Any ETA of test firing?


Offline Gliderflyer

Re: XCOR and the Lynx rocket
« Reply #1103 on: 04/07/2017 02:58 PM »
How's it going with 8H21, are you making good progress?. Any ETA of test firing?
We are making progress, but I can't give out any specific details or dates.
I tried it at home

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7429
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1421
  • Likes Given: 4416
Re: XCOR and the Lynx rocket
« Reply #1104 on: 04/07/2017 08:50 PM »
How's it going with 8H21, are you making good progress?. Any ETA of test firing?
We are making progress, but I can't give out any specific details or dates.
Why 5H and 8H?

Offline Gliderflyer

Re: XCOR and the Lynx rocket
« Reply #1105 on: 04/08/2017 06:26 PM »
Why 5H and 8H?
XCOR uses a number/letter/number format for engine designations. The first number is the thrust class of the engine, the letter is the propellant combination (LOX/hydrogen in this case), and the second number is the design number.
I tried it at home

Online ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3415
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 1978
  • Likes Given: 2274
Re: XCOR and the Lynx rocket
« Reply #1106 on: 06/15/2017 05:06 AM »
An article in SpaceNews yesterday about the state of suborbital space tourism had some tidbits about Lynx, and none of it is good:

Quote
The company, however, claims it has not abandoned the Lynx. The hardware built for the Mark 1 prototype vehicle remains in the company’s Mojave, California, facility, where a handful of employees are performing a “system review and documentation effort,” company spokesman Marco Martinez-Venturi said in March.

To me, that sounds like they're trying to make sure they preserve knowledge.  That's better than just losing it, but it means they're not making any forward progress, just trying not to move backwards.

Quote
Martinez-Venturi acknowledged that additional progress would depend on the company’s ability to raise more money. “Although we have advanced the program with much of our recent efforts, completion of the prototype is funding dependent,” he said. “The start of the test flight program, like the vehicle completion, is dependent on funding.”

So nothing is going to change unless they find someone to fund it, which they don't have now.

Quote
He did not respond to a request for an update on Lynx in May.

To me, that's the most ominous thing in the article.  They're not even responding to press inquires about it any more.

http://spacenews.com/what-the-hell-happened-the-rise-and-fall-of-suborbital-space-tourism-companies/

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2776
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 1788
  • Likes Given: 632
Re: XCOR and the Lynx rocket
« Reply #1107 on: 06/17/2017 05:23 PM »
Looks like more change may be coming at XCOR if CEO departs:

Quote
On Friday, President Donald Trump announced his intent to nominate [Jay] Gibson to be deputy chief management officer of the Department of Defense.

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2017/06/17/jay-gibson-xcor-trump-administration/

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7917
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2630
  • Likes Given: 635
Re: XCOR and the Lynx rocket
« Reply #1108 on: 06/17/2017 11:37 PM »
I don't even know how to feel about that... umm, good? I find it hard to summon up any hope for Lynx.
Non-commercial spaceflight and filicide  http://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=185

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4125
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 1323
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: XCOR and the Lynx rocket
« Reply #1109 on: 06/18/2017 03:24 AM »
John H. Gibson II. He served as Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Management Reform and Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Financial Management and Comptroller under Bush II.

Sounds like DoD may be in for a house-cleaning.
DM

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5363
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 660
  • Likes Given: 3687
Re: XCOR and the Lynx rocket
« Reply #1110 on: 06/21/2017 12:06 PM »
Why 5H and 8H?
XCOR uses a number/letter/number format for engine designations. The first number is the thrust class of the engine, the letter is the propellant combination (LOX/hydrogen in this case), and the second number is the design number.
So "8H21" is an 8000 lb thrust, Hydrogen fuel, design number 21 on the internal XCOR project index?

XCOR seems like the contender who would benefit most from winning the contest for the new Vulcan upper stage engine.  I also think they could deliver an engine that's meets all its specs at a price ULA would be happy with but would still be profitable for XCOR, something I think AJR will struggle with.

"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Offline Gliderflyer

Re: XCOR and the Lynx rocket
« Reply #1111 on: 06/22/2017 04:25 AM »
So "8H21" is an 8000 lb thrust, Hydrogen fuel, design number 21 on the internal XCOR project index?
Almost, the 8H21 is designed to be a 25,000 lb thrust engine. The 8 refers to the "thrust class", which is an internally designated range of thrust values. I don't think we have ever published the specific thrust ranges, but basically each successive number covers a higher range of thrust values.
I tried it at home

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5363
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 660
  • Likes Given: 3687
Re: XCOR and the Lynx rocket
« Reply #1112 on: 06/22/2017 05:56 PM »
So "8H21" is an 8000 lb thrust, Hydrogen fuel, design number 21 on the internal XCOR project index?
Almost, the 8H21 is designed to be a 25,000 lb thrust engine. The 8 refers to the "thrust class", which is an internally designated range of thrust values. I don't think we have ever published the specific thrust ranges, but basically each successive number covers a higher range of thrust values.
Got it. I'd assumed it was the first digit of the thrust, roughly in 1000s of lbs.

So this would be the full size RL10 class engine for ULA?
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Tags: