Author Topic: Generation Orbit Launch Services Inc.  (Read 12004 times)

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9448
  • Liked: 332
  • Likes Given: 421
Generation Orbit Launch Services Inc.
« on: 01/02/2012 03:21 PM »
http://www.generationorbit.com/

Generation Orbit Launch Services, Inc. (or GO) presents a fast, flexible, and dedicated nanosatellite (1-30 kg) orbital payload delivery service called GO Launcher, utilizing existing high speed jet aircraft and mostly existing rockets.

GO has offices in Atlanta, GA and Washington, DC. GO is privately held.



Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7981
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 227
  • Likes Given: 84
Re: Generation Orbit Launch Services Inc.
« Reply #1 on: 01/02/2012 04:00 PM »
Giving a company a common word as a name turns it into a joke.  Rename GO GOrbit.

Offline simonbp

Re: Generation Orbit Launch Services Inc.
« Reply #2 on: 01/02/2012 04:38 PM »
I love how their "Market Projection" plot takes a flat rate of nanosat launches and draws an ascending line through it. Data? Data? We don't need to fit no stinking data!

Also, since when can you buy an F-15 commercially?
« Last Edit: 01/02/2012 04:38 PM by simonbp »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12148
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 2861
  • Likes Given: 498
Re: Generation Orbit Launch Services Inc.
« Reply #3 on: 01/02/2012 05:47 PM »
I love how their "Market Projection" plot takes a flat rate of nanosat launches and draws an ascending line through it. Data? Data? We don't need to fit no stinking data!

Also, since when can you buy an F-15 commercially?
This is an interesting concept that, of course, harkens back to the flight-tested F-15 ASM-135 ASAT of the 1980s. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ASM-135_ASAT_5.jpg

One wonders if ASAT is a secondary, or even primary, objective of a proposed orbital effort. 

Their web site discusses other air launch platform possibilities, including an F-4, an SU-27, and a Gulfstream III, but since their primary (proposed) customer already owns many F-15 aircraft, availability might not be a problem!

BTW, given that we're living in the UAV "drone era", the next step should be obvious.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 01/03/2012 02:49 PM by edkyle99 »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12148
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 2861
  • Likes Given: 498
Re: Generation Orbit Launch Services Inc.
« Reply #4 on: 01/03/2012 02:49 PM »
GO has offices in Atlanta, GA and Washington, DC. GO is privately held.

Note that at least one principal of GO was involved in the DARPA/USAF FALCON project.  Others worked on the recent DARPA/NASA Horizontal Launch Systems study, and/or worked with a team from Japan on a similar launch concept.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8276
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 933
  • Likes Given: 222
Re: Generation Orbit Launch Services Inc.
« Reply #5 on: 01/03/2012 05:22 PM »
Why not just use an additional solid to bring the payload up point that it would be release by the jet. Surely that would be cheaper than buying an maintaining a supersonic jet for what looks to me like 20 some odd payloads a year.

Also, considering that the envelope under the jet is more of a constraint than the weight, I wonder if hanging such a vehicle off of the center line of a retired F-14 would provide better clearance and a larger vehicle... The F-14 was designed to carry Phoenix AIM-54 after all.
« Last Edit: 01/03/2012 05:52 PM by kevin-rf »
I just saw some idiot at the gym put a water bottle in the pringles holder on the treadmill.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25723
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 5814
  • Likes Given: 4323
Re: Generation Orbit Launch Services Inc.
« Reply #6 on: 01/03/2012 05:57 PM »
Why not just use an additional solid to bring the payload up point that it would be release by the jet. Surely that would be cheaper than buying an maintaining a supersonic jet for what looks to me like 20 some odd payloads a year.

Also, considering that the envelope under the jet is more of constraint than the weight, I wonder if hanging such a vehicle off of the center line of a retired F-14 would provide better clearance and a larger vehicle... The F-14 was designed to carry Phoenix AIM-54 after all.
A lot of supersonic fighter/bomber type jets that can do Mach 2 or better can be had for cheaper than many corporate jets. If you can get a really good deal ($5 million?) for a used one with a lot of exterior payload capacity (i.e. 5-10 tons), it may well be worth it. How much it costs to service and any modifications required is another matter. It's not the worst idea around, if there's a real market for lots of micro/nanosatellites that need their own launch, as is the whole point of this venture.
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 simonbp

Re: Generation Orbit Launch Services Inc.
« Reply #7 on: 01/03/2012 06:52 PM »
A lot of supersonic fighter/bomber type jets that can do Mach 2 or better can be had for cheaper than many corporate jets.

Like what? MiG-25/31 is the only one that springs to mind as potentially commercially available for cheaper than a large-ish private jet...

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25723
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 5814
  • Likes Given: 4323
Re: Generation Orbit Launch Services Inc.
« Reply #8 on: 01/03/2012 07:05 PM »
A lot of supersonic fighter/bomber type jets that can do Mach 2 or better can be had for cheaper than many corporate jets.

Like what? MiG-25/31 is the only one that springs to mind as potentially commercially available for cheaper than a large-ish private jet...
Corporate jets can go for up to $50 million (like for a Gulfstream G550). That's more than the unit costs for an F-15 (<$30 million in 1998 dollars), and a used F-15 without functional weapons systems may be much less than that. But yeah, I imagine a fighter from anywhere (if you have corporate backing and aren't just a private individual) may be available for this. Won't make it easy, but still doable if there's a business case.
« Last Edit: 01/03/2012 07:06 PM by Robotbeat »
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: 12148
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 2861
  • Likes Given: 498
Re: Generation Orbit Launch Services Inc.
« Reply #9 on: 01/03/2012 07:14 PM »
Why not just use an additional solid to bring the payload up point that it would be release by the jet. Surely that would be cheaper than buying an maintaining a supersonic jet for what looks to me like 20 some odd payloads a year.

I can think of several answers to this question.

The first answer is that it wouldn't be just one solid, it would be "20-some" (or however many launches) solids.  Per year.  The cost of the aircraft would have to be compared to the total number of solids needed to replace it over the program life, plus any extra costs associated with one or two fixed launch sites, etc..   

The second answer is that a fixed launch site would not be as flexible or "responsive" as an airborne launch, in terms of orbit inclination, etc. 

A third answer would be that, in times of war, an airborne launch system should, or could, be less vulnerable to attack than a fixed ground launch site.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8276
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 933
  • Likes Given: 222
Re: Generation Orbit Launch Services Inc.
« Reply #10 on: 01/03/2012 07:43 PM »
I can think of several answers to this question.

The first answer is that it wouldn't be just one solid, it would be "20-some" (or however many launches) solids.  Per year.  The cost of the aircraft would have to be compared to the total number of solids needed to replace it over the program life, plus any extra costs associated with one or two fixed launch sites, etc..   

We are talking a very small launcher here, costs should be of the order of large solid sounding rockets. Unlike liquids, the only additional GSE you will need is a launch rail.

Quote
The second answer is that a fixed launch site would not be as flexible or "responsive" as an airborne launch, in terms of orbit inclination, etc. 

But does the cubesat market need that flexibility? Is the market large enough to cause jams at the launch site?

Quote
A third answer would be that, in times of war, an airborne launch system should, or could, be less vulnerable to attack than a fixed ground launch site.

But can a payload of value to the war fighter be launched on a cubesat? If so, ULA has some splaining to do ;)
I just saw some idiot at the gym put a water bottle in the pringles holder on the treadmill.

Offline simonbp

Re: Generation Orbit Launch Services Inc.
« Reply #11 on: 01/04/2012 02:32 AM »
But can a payload of value to the war fighter be launched on a cubesat?

The Army seems to think so...

http://www.spacenews.com/military/100806-nanomissile-launch-the-smallest-satellites.html

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8276
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 933
  • Likes Given: 222
Re: Generation Orbit Launch Services Inc.
« Reply #12 on: 01/04/2012 04:09 PM »
I love how their "Market Projection" plot takes a flat rate of nanosat launches and draws an ascending line through it. Data? Data? We don't need to fit no stinking data!

Also, since when can you buy an F-15 commercially?

I think they pulled that graph from here (page 7) :
http://www.sei.aero/eng/papers/uploads/archive/SpaceWorks_NanoMicrosat_Launch_22Nov2011_revA.pdf

Quote
The Army seems to think so...
Other than a few stowaways on the last Falcon 9 flight, how many nano satellites have they actually launched? The concept has not yet been proven.
I just saw some idiot at the gym put a water bottle in the pringles holder on the treadmill.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25723
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 5814
  • Likes Given: 4323
Re: Generation Orbit Launch Services Inc.
« Reply #13 on: 01/04/2012 04:36 PM »
*shrug* I think nano/microsats are far more proven than the orbital space tourism market.

Nano/microsats benefit from continual improvements in electronics, etc. Orbcomm's satellites are only about 40kg (and some of their demo sats were only ~15kg). 44 of them are up there right now (that's just one company), they're planning on adding a bunch more (though the new ones will be more massive), and Orbcomm has about $35-40 million in yearly revenue.

There are other microsatellite constellation companies out there that have plans for many more satellites than Orbcomm's constellation and with higher bandwidth capabilities. COMMStellation is planning for a constellation containing a total of 84 microsatellites, though they're planning on launching them as bunches on conventional launch vehicles. If there was a really cheap nano/microsatellite launcher available, future projects may choose them instead (or even COMMStellation if it gets delayed... especially for launching replacement satellites). At 20 microsatellite launches per year, that's over four years of microsatellite launches just with this one constellation. That's really an opportunity to get the flight rate up to near-RLV ranges, especially if there's a couple of these constellations up there which need replacement or upgrading every 5 or so years.

Now, I think they should go for at least 100-150kg to LEO, since it would allow a lot more revenue options. But even 50kg would be useful (i.e. could orbit the first generation Orbcomm satellites... though they're kind of weirdly shaped for a nano/microsatellite launcher).
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 Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4085
  • Liked: 91
  • Likes Given: 180
Re: Generation Orbit Launch Services Inc.
« Reply #14 on: 01/05/2012 01:58 AM »
Corporate jets can go for up to $50 million (like for a Gulfstream G550). That's more than the unit costs for an F-15 (<$30 million in 1998 dollars), and a used F-15 without functional weapons systems may be much less than that. But yeah, I imagine a fighter from anywhere (if you have corporate backing and aren't just a private individual) may be available for this. Won't make it easy, but still doable if there's a business case.

The F-4 also could be a good candidate as it can reach mach 2.23 and has a center line tank mount that could be used to carry a small micro sat launcher.

Another plane that probably could be had for low cost  is the F-111 it has a large payload and a max speed of mach 2.5.


« Last Edit: 01/05/2012 01:59 AM by Patchouli »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25723
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 5814
  • Likes Given: 4323
Re: Generation Orbit Launch Services Inc.
« Reply #15 on: 01/05/2012 02:13 AM »
There's going to be pretty strong forces pushing them to want to design for larger payloads... 150kg to orbit allows you to serve some pretty decent markets... Or launch a whole fleet of nanosatellites at once. Pegasus, if it weren't so expensive, is actually a pretty darned good size for something like this.

I'd like to see what sort of payload XCor's microlaunch concept could get to LEO.
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 kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2500
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Generation Orbit Launch Services Inc.
« Reply #16 on: 01/05/2012 10:50 AM »
There's going to be pretty strong forces pushing them to want to design for larger payloads... 150kg to orbit allows you to serve some pretty decent markets... Or launch a whole fleet of nanosatellites at once. Pegasus, if it weren't so expensive, is actually a pretty darned good size for something like this.

I'd like to see what sort of payload XCor's microlaunch concept could get to LEO.

Which is a similar concept except it deploys the launcher at Mach 3+ and 120K+ feet, with near zero drag. Plus the carrier plane can also do sub-orbital science & tourist flights.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8276
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 933
  • Likes Given: 222
Re: Generation Orbit Launch Services Inc.
« Reply #17 on: 01/05/2012 12:41 PM »

Another plane that probably could be had for low cost  is the F-111 it has a large payload and a max speed of mach 2.5.


Anything flown on an F-111 center line will have to be stored internally, the F-111 does not have the necessary ground clearance to fly external stores on the center line. If stored externally it would have to be carried off center on one of the wings.
« Last Edit: 01/05/2012 12:41 PM by kevin-rf »
I just saw some idiot at the gym put a water bottle in the pringles holder on the treadmill.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25723
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 5814
  • Likes Given: 4323
Re: Generation Orbit Launch Services Inc.
« Reply #18 on: 01/05/2012 02:39 PM »
There's going to be pretty strong forces pushing them to want to design for larger payloads... 150kg to orbit allows you to serve some pretty decent markets... Or launch a whole fleet of nanosatellites at once. Pegasus, if it weren't so expensive, is actually a pretty darned good size for something like this.

I'd like to see what sort of payload XCor's microlaunch concept could get to LEO.

Which is a similar concept except it deploys the launcher at Mach 3+ and 120K+ feet, with near zero drag. Plus the carrier plane can also do sub-orbital science & tourist flights.
I'm not sure XCor's concept could get a 30kg microsatellite up, though. And I think that even that may be a little too small.
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 simonbp

Re: Generation Orbit Launch Services Inc.
« Reply #19 on: 01/05/2012 03:27 PM »
According to the brochure, Lynx Mk II has an external payload capacity of 650 kg. That should be enough for a >30 kg microsat.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25723
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 5814
  • Likes Given: 4323
Re: Generation Orbit Launch Services Inc.
« Reply #20 on: 01/05/2012 04:21 PM »
I still think that a 30kg microsat is a little optimistic for the Lynx MkII unless they use a high performance liquid rocket (instead of the much more likely solids). Scout G's 2nd, 3rd, and 4th stages (we're saying the Lynx acts as the first stage, which is probably optimistic) and payload add together to a mass of 6300kg for a payload of 210kg. For a 650kg rocket, proportionally that would leave only 22kg of payload, and that's not counting the really significant "minimum-gauge"-type issues you'd have with a rocket that small. But with a high-performance liquid rocket engine, perhaps even a methane or hydrogen one (hydrogen pretty unlikely, but they're working on it for ULA), they may well get to a 30kg microsatellite, if minimum-gauge issues don't kill them (i.e. where do you get aerospace-weight, LOx-compatible valves of that size?).

Sorry for the slightly-offtopicness of this post.
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 Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4085
  • Liked: 91
  • Likes Given: 180
Re: Generation Orbit Launch Services Inc.
« Reply #21 on: 01/05/2012 06:12 PM »

Another plane that probably could be had for low cost  is the F-111 it has a large payload and a max speed of mach 2.5.


Anything flown on an F-111 center line will have to be stored internally, the F-111 does not have the necessary ground clearance to fly external stores on the center line. If stored externally it would have to be carried off center on one of the wings.

Yah it lacks an external center line mount but the wing hard points can carry about 2300kg each which should still be enough for a good sized micro launcher and there is good ground clearance as shown in this pic.

With a rocket sized for the hard points it should be capable of putting 50 to 80kg into orbit.

ISP will be a huge driver here and a high performance liquid rocket such as NOFBX will yeild much better numbers then a solid.
« Last Edit: 01/05/2012 06:22 PM by Patchouli »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25723
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 5814
  • Likes Given: 4323
Re: Generation Orbit Launch Services Inc.
« Reply #22 on: 01/05/2012 07:15 PM »
Only if the NOFBX rocket is pump-fed would it be much higher performance than a solid (seems dangerous to me).
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 jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5961
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 1892
  • Likes Given: 656
Re: Generation Orbit Launch Services Inc.
« Reply #23 on: 01/06/2012 01:41 AM »
I still think that a 30kg microsat is a little optimistic for the Lynx MkII unless they use a high performance liquid rocket (instead of the much more likely solids).

You think solids would be likely with the XCOR crowd? You don't know them very well...

~Jon

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25723
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 5814
  • Likes Given: 4323
Re: Generation Orbit Launch Services Inc.
« Reply #24 on: 01/06/2012 03:53 AM »
I still think that a 30kg microsat is a little optimistic for the Lynx MkII unless they use a high performance liquid rocket (instead of the much more likely solids).

You think solids would be likely with the XCOR crowd? You don't know them very well...

~Jon
Ah, true...
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 sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5471
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 573
  • Likes Given: 668
Re: Generation Orbit Launch Services Inc.
« Reply #25 on: 01/06/2012 04:45 AM »
The customer interested in operationally responsive capability might be willing to support this effort even without purchasing any launches.  Somewhat like EELV, it is partially the capability to launch which is of value.
-- sdsds --

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5961
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 1892
  • Likes Given: 656
Re: Generation Orbit Launch Services Inc.
« Reply #26 on: 01/06/2012 04:36 PM »
Man, if only those Generation Orbit guys had been smart enough to consult with NSF's resident experts, they could've saved themselves so much embarrassment...

;-)

~Jon

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12148
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 2861
  • Likes Given: 498
Re: Generation Orbit Launch Services Inc.
« Reply #27 on: 01/06/2012 04:52 PM »
Here's a very interesting paper from 2003 that hints at the possibilities.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA428105

The author suggests that 6.5 kg to 400 km orbit is possible using a single-stage rocket, GLOW 2 tonnes (air launched). 

My back of the envelope suggests that a solid motor two stage air-launched rocket weighing 2 tonnes using optimized stage masses could lift perhaps 50 kg to 400 km LEO.  This with existing mass ratios and ISP more conservative than Maj Lawrence's assumptions. 

GO wants to use existing motors, which would likely mean less-than-optimal results using more than two stages, but still good for 30 kg.

Compare with state of the art ground launch, 1956-58-ish.  The Vanguard rocket weighed about 10 tonnes but could only lift 23 kg into LEO.  Or compare with Japan's rail-launched (unguided initial stages) Lambda 4S, circa 1966, which weighed 9.2 tonnes (four stages) and could orbit 56 kg.

So, this thing looks do-able.  Cost is, of course, the key.  Maj. Lawrence suggested that it might be possible to orbit a small payload for roughly the same as it costs to use certain GPS guided bombs or missiles.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 01/07/2012 02:32 PM by edkyle99 »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12148
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 2861
  • Likes Given: 498
Re: Generation Orbit Launch Services Inc.
« Reply #28 on: 01/08/2012 06:28 PM »
http://www.generationorbit.com/

Generation Orbit Launch Services, Inc. (or GO) presents a fast, flexible, and dedicated nanosatellite (1-30 kg) orbital payload delivery service called GO Launcher, utilizing existing high speed jet aircraft and mostly existing rockets.

GO has offices in Atlanta, GA and Washington, DC. GO is privately held.

This sure does look like what DARPA is asking for with ALASA, doesn't it?

http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2011/11/10.aspx

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3Abe5304f4-1881-4067-b2e8-ef38541a0e77

 - Ed Kyle

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1341
  • Liked: 817
  • Likes Given: 222
Re: Generation Orbit Launch Services Inc.
« Reply #29 on: 01/08/2012 08:38 PM »
http://www.generationorbit.com/

Generation Orbit Launch Services, Inc. (or GO) presents a fast, flexible, and dedicated nanosatellite (1-30 kg) orbital payload delivery service called GO Launcher, utilizing existing high speed jet aircraft and mostly existing rockets.

GO has offices in Atlanta, GA and Washington, DC. GO is privately held.

This sure does look like what DARPA is asking for with ALASA, doesn't it?

http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2011/11/10.aspx

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3Abe5304f4-1881-4067-b2e8-ef38541a0e77

 - Ed Kyle

It seems to miss both payload mass requirement (100 lbm) and cost target ($1M or less).

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12148
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 2861
  • Likes Given: 498
Re: Generation Orbit Launch Services Inc.
« Reply #30 on: 01/08/2012 11:49 PM »
It seems to miss both payload mass requirement (100 lbm) and cost target ($1M or less).

The GO-2 section does mention the possibility of future performance upgrades, and only 15 kg or so more is needed, so there's that.  As for the cost, I'm not sure I can imagine anyone making the $1 million per launch mark.  It's a nice goal, but let's be realistic.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1341
  • Liked: 817
  • Likes Given: 222
Re: Generation Orbit Launch Services Inc.
« Reply #31 on: 01/09/2012 12:15 AM »
It seems to miss both payload mass requirement (100 lbm) and cost target ($1M or less).

The GO-2 section does mention the possibility of future performance upgrades, and only 15 kg or so more is needed, so there's that.  As for the cost, I'm not sure I can imagine anyone making the $1 million per launch mark.  It's a nice goal, but let's be realistic.

 - Ed Kyle

A good way to lose a proposal submitted to even DARPA is to begin by saying I can't achieve a stated requirement.  From the Q&A for ALASA, Dec 1, 2011:

Q11: How strict is the $1M total cost per flight goal?

A11: The $1M per flight cost is a firm requirement, and it is incumbent on the proposer to determine how that will be achieved. The BAA will be amended to clarify the $1M per flight cost is a firm requirement.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25723
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 5814
  • Likes Given: 4323
Re: Generation Orbit Launch Services Inc.
« Reply #32 on: 01/09/2012 03:55 AM »
I like those sort of goals... They seem just out of reach. If it was a "practical" goal, then it wouldn't be a good goal for a prize-type contest. It's good for stretching the bounds of what is then understood as "practical."

$1 million is a good goal. They don't need just another Scout or Minotaur or Falcon 1 launch vehicle, they want something considerably cheaper. And a $1 million per launch for a microsatellite of ~50kg is pretty enabling for small-business-scale (and even concerted hobbyist/amateur group) projects, perhaps even cheaper than flying as a secondary payload. Actually, that brings up a good question:

Exactly how much does it typically cost for a 100lbm microsatellite to launch as a secondary payload?
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 HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1341
  • Liked: 817
  • Likes Given: 222
Re: Generation Orbit Launch Services Inc.
« Reply #33 on: 01/09/2012 03:58 AM »
I like those sort of goals... They seem just out of reach. If it was a "practical" goal, then it wouldn't be a good goal for a prize-type contest. It's good for stretching the bounds of what is then understood as "practical."

$1 million is a good goal. They don't need just another Scout or Minotaur or Falcon 1 launch vehicle, they want something considerably cheaper. And a $1 million per launch for a microsatellite of ~50kg is pretty enabling for small-business-scale (and even concerted hobbyist/amateur group) projects, perhaps even cheaper than flying as a secondary payload. Actually, that brings up a good question:

Exactly how much does it typically cost for a 100lbm microsatellite to launch as a secondary payload?

The answer is usually "how much do you have?"  ;)

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9448
  • Liked: 332
  • Likes Given: 421
Re: Generation Orbit Launch Services Inc.
« Reply #34 on: 12/05/2014 03:52 PM »
http://www.generationorbit.com/blog/category/news/

Generation Orbit Hires Zack Rubin as Structures Lead Engineer

Generation Orbit Launch Services, Inc. (GO) is pleased to welcome Mr. Zack Rubin to the team as the Lead Engineer of the Engineering Team’s Structures Division. Mr. Rubin will be responsible for leading the design, prototyping, integration and testing of flight structures, mechanisms, and separation systems for the GOLauncher family of vehicles. Mr. Rubin began his position with GO in early August.

Previously, he worked as a Structures Engineer and Dynamic Environments Engineer at SpaceX. Mr. Rubin contributed flight hardware design and analysis to Falcon 1, Falcon 9 v1.0 and v1.1, Grasshopper, Falcon Heavy and Dragon. He developed in-house shock testing facilities for rapid hardware qualification, and was also responsible for dynamic environments, instrumentation and sound suppression modifications at the Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg launch pads and the McGregor Texas test site. Mr. Rubin holds a Master of Science in Aerospace Engineering focused from California Institute of Technology, and a Bachelor of Science in Engineering from Harvey Mudd College.

Mr. Rubin commented on the start of his tenure at GO. “Dedication to creating new technology for a rapidly evolving aerospace market is what sets companies like GO apart. We are going to build and fly amazing hardware and I am so happy to have a contributing role.”

“Through his hands-on experience as a Responsible Engineer on multiple projects, Zack has demonstrated not only his engineering skills, but also his leadership characteristics,” commented GO’s COO A.J. Piplica. “We are confident in his abilities to make him a huge impact on our company’s success.”

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9448
  • Liked: 332
  • Likes Given: 421
Re: Generation Orbit Launch Services Inc.
« Reply #35 on: 12/05/2014 03:53 PM »
http://www.generationorbit.com/blog/generation-orbit-awarded-phase-i-sbir-grant-with-afrl-for-golauncher-1-hypersonic-testbed/

Generation Orbit Awarded Phase I SBIR with AFRL for GOLauncher 1 Hypersonic Testbed

July 9, 2014
Atlanta, GA

Generation Orbit Launch Services, Inc. (GO) has been awarded a Phase I Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) contract from the Air Force Research Laboratory, Aerospace Systems Directorate (AFRL/RQ) for development of a GOLauncher 1, a single-stage air launched liquid rocket vehicle designed to fly suppressed trajectories for hypersonic flight research applications. Booster systems capable of flying suppressed trajectories increase flexibility for experimental payloads to high Mach number, high dynamic pressure test environments. The nine-month effort worth $150,000 will focus on requirements definition, configuration trade studies, and trajectory design space exploration.

“Rooted in the success of the HIFiRE program’s philosophy, we believe GOLauncher 1 will provide longer duration testing with the flexibility to maximize accessibility to flight conditions of interest to the hypersonic research and development community at an affordable cost,” commented A.J. Piplica, the Principal Investigator on the effort. “Generation Orbit’s solution to improving access to test windows of interest for hypersonic flight testing calls for a novel air launched liquid rocket booster system specifically designed for flying suppressed trajectories. We expect a large amount of traceability, in terms of both technology and operations, between GOLauncher 1 and the GOLauncher family.”

AFRL project manager, Barry Hellman, also commented on the program. “As the Air Force works toward next-generation hypersonic systems, flexible and affordable flight testing stands as a key enabler for technology development and operational demonstrations. The combination of air launch and liquid-fueled rockets has the potential to open the diversity of trajectories we can fly.”

For additional details contact:

A.J. Piplica
Chief Operating Officer
Generation Orbit Launch Services, Inc.
1040 Crown Pointe Parkway, Suite 950
Atlanta, GA 30338
aj.piplica@generationorbit.com

About Generation Orbit Launch Services, Inc.

Atlanta-based Generation Orbit Launch Services, Inc. (GO) focuses on providing fast, flexible, and dedicated space transportation services for small payloads. GOLauncher 2 supplies microsatellite, nanosatellite, and CubeSat customers with reliable and affordable access to space. The unique air launch approach developed by GO and its development partners offers flexible launch capabilities, poised to reduce fixed infrastructure needs, launch costs, and the time from contract signature to launch. Air launch system experience at GO dates back over 10 years, providing a distinct advantage throughout the design and analysis process. As a systems integrator, GO compiles multiple aspects of the launch architecture to provide a streamlined service to scientists, researchers, and industry customers alike.

For more information, visit GO on the web at

www.generationorbit.com

 and follow GO on Twitter @generationorbit.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3269
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 534
  • Likes Given: 332
Re: Generation Orbit Launch Services Inc.
« Reply #36 on: 12/08/2016 09:39 PM »
BUMP: Due to so many un-posted Generation Orbit updates and the start of various types of post PDR testing on GOLauncher-1 its time to update this thread.

The following is this threads backlog of un-posted updates:

2014:
April 15, 2014 – Updates from the GO Workshop (http://generationorbit.com/april-15th-2014-updates-from-the-go-workshop/)
July 9, 2014 – Generation Orbit Awarded Phase I SBIR with AFRL for GOLauncher 1 Hypersonic Testbed (http://generationorbit.com/generation-orbit-awarded-phase-i-sbir-with-afrl-for-golauncher-1-hypersonic-testbed/)
July 21, 2014 – Leaving the Nest and Learning to Fly (http://generationorbit.com/july-21st-2014-leaving-the-nest-and-learning-to-fly/)
July 31, 2014 – Generation Orbit Completes First Flight Test (http://generationorbit.com/generation-orbit-completes-first-flight-test/)
August 22, 2014 – GO FET Internal Environment Data Analysis (http://generationorbit.com/august-22-2014-go-fet-internal-environment-data-analysis/)
August 28, 2014 – Generation Orbit Hires Zack Rubin as Structures Lead Engineer (http://generationorbit.com/generation-orbit-hires-zack-rubin-as-structures-lead-engineer/)
December 8, 2014 – Congratulations Orion! (http://generationorbit.com/december-8-2014-congratulations-orion/)

2015:
January 16, 2015 – Hardware Prototyping (http://generationorbit.com/january-16-2015-hardware-prototyping/)
February 6, 2015 – Flow Boldly. (http://generationorbit.com/february-6-2015-flow-boldly/)
March 3, 2015 – Successful Hot Fire Tests (http://generationorbit.com/march-3-2015-successful-hot-fire-tests/)
July 16, 2015 – Generation Orbit Completes Second Flight Test (http://generationorbit.com/generation-orbit-completes-second-flight-test/)
August 4, 2015 – Generation Orbit Awarded Phase II SBIR Contract with AFRL for GOLauncher 1 Hypersonic Testbed Design and Prototype (http://generationorbit.com/generation-orbit-awarded-phase-ii-sbir-contract-with-afrl-for-golauncher-1-hypersonic-testbed-design-and-prototype/)
August 24, 2015 – Generation Orbit Hires Glenn Case as Senior Engineer (http://generationorbit.com/generation-orbit-hires-glenn-case-as-senior-engineer/)
August 24, 2015 – Generation Orbit Hires Skyler Shuford as Lead Guidance, Navigation, and Control Engineer (http://generationorbit.com/generation-orbit-hires-skyler-shuford-as-lead-guidance-navigation-and-control-engineer/)
December 8, 2015 – Generation Orbit Completes 3rd Successful Flight of GO-FET Flight Testbed (http://generationorbit.com/generation-orbit-completes-3rd-successful-flight-of-go-fet-flight-testbed/)

2016:
February 9, 2016 – SpaceWorks Family of Companies Awarded the Georgia Small Business of the Year Award by National Defense Industrial Association – Georgia Chapter (http://generationorbit.com/spaceworks-family-of-companies-awarded-the-georgia-small-business-of-the-year-award-by-national-defense-industrial-association-georgia-chapter/)
April 11, 2016 – Generation Orbit Signs Space Act Agreement with NASA Langley Research Center to Advance the Design and Manufacture of Cryogenic Propellant Tanks for Air Launched Liquid Rockets (http://generationorbit.com/generation-orbit-signs-space-act-agreement-with-nasa-langley-research-center-to-advance-the-design-and-manufacture-of-cryogenic-propellant-tanks-for-air-launched-liquid-rockets/)
April 28, 2016 – Generation Orbit Celebrates Five Year Anniversary (http://generationorbit.com/generation-orbit-celebrates-five-year-anniversary/)
May 2, 2016 – Generation Orbit Signs Space Act Agreement with NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center for Flight Testing of GOLauncher 1 (http://generationorbit.com/nasa-armstrong-flight-research-center-selects-generation-orbit-for-space-act-agreement-to-conduct-flight-testing-of-golauncher-1/)
June 22, 2016 – Generation Orbit Completes GOLauncher 1 Preliminary Design Review (http://generationorbit.com/generation-orbit-completes-golauncher-1-preliminary-design-review/)
October 27, 2016 – Generation Orbit Prepares for GO1 Wind Tunnel and Hot Fire Testing (http://generationorbit.com/generation-orbit-prepares-for-go1-wind-tunnel-and-hot-fire-testing/)

Online savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Liked: 773
  • Likes Given: 251
Re: Generation Orbit Launch Services Inc.
« Reply #37 on: 04/09/2017 07:22 PM »
http://generationorbit.com/generation-orbit-awarded-contract-for-go1-flight-testing/

Quote
Generation Orbit Launch Services, Inc. (GO) is pleased to announce the award of a Follow-On Phase II SBIR (Small Business Innovative Research) contract from the Air Force Research Laboratory, Aerospace Systems Directorate, High Speed Systems Division (AFRL/RQH) for development and flight testing of the GOLauncher 1 (GO1). The single stage liquid rocket, launched from a Gulfstream III business jet, will conduct its inaugural flight test in 2019, reaching Mach 6 within the atmospher
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Tags: