Author Topic: SWORDS nanosat launch vehicle  (Read 50143 times)

Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2631
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 939
  • Likes Given: 172
SWORDS nanosat launch vehicle
« on: 12/05/2012 02:08 pm »
Does anyone have more information on the SWORDS ("Soldier-Warfighter Operationally Responsive Deployer for Space") nanosat launch vehicle, which is being developped as a a cooperative project between Office of the Secretary of Defense, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command and NASA.

SWORDS aims to launch a 25 kg payload into a low earth orbit for a cost of about 1 million USD. First orbital launch is planned for summer 2014 after one suborbital test.

Ther vehicle will use four pressure fed engines (LOX/Methane) for propulsion. Steering is to be provided by differential throttling.

http://www.smdc.army.mil/FactSheets/SWORDS.pdf
« Last Edit: 12/05/2012 02:25 pm by Skyrocket »

Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2631
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 939
  • Likes Given: 172
Re: SWORDS nanosat launch vehicle
« Reply #1 on: 12/05/2012 02:46 pm »
Just a small observation: While the payload is only 25 kg, the fairing diameter is pretty large with 2.59 m (8.5 ft).

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351
Re: SWORDS nanosat launch vehicle
« Reply #2 on: 12/05/2012 05:09 pm »
The following presentation mentions something called "Garvey Space", and something bigger named "Super Strypi".  I have no idea, but Garvey seems to be here:  http://www.garvspace.com/index.html  It isn't clear whether Garvey is involved in SWORDS.

https://info.aiaa.org/Regions/MW/Rocky_MNT/ATS-2012/ATS2012%20Presentations/Bille.pdf

Note that 25 kg is to a 28.5 deg orbit, implying that the Army plans to fight only between +/- 28 deg latitude.  ;)

Then there's this, which is a project involving the Tridyne pressurization system mentioned in the SWORDS document.  This one was Microcosm, but it was for the Air Force.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA463696
http://smad.com/scorpius/aiaa_paper_jpc04chak1.pdf

And this:  http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_08_27_2012_p26-488720.xml&p=1

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 12/05/2012 05:26 pm by edkyle99 »

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351
Re: SWORDS nanosat launch vehicle
« Reply #3 on: 12/05/2012 08:30 pm »
This write up mentions the mysterious "KT Engineering" being involved in SWORDS.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2197/1

Here is KT Engineering, which is parked on the fringes of Redstone Arsenal.
http://www.kte-aerospace.com/
It turns out that KT Engineering has been heavy into LOX/LCH4 propulsion R&D for awhile now, including work for NASA and the "U.S. Government".  One project included a 20,000 lb thrust pressure fed engine set up for testing at Marshall.  (Note that one of the SWORDS stages uses 22Klbf engines).  They seem to be a systems engineering outfit that "leads government/industry teams".  The founders included ex-Lockheed Martin types, including at least one from the "Skunk Works".

An interesting bit, when you look at the Google street view images, KT Engineering's parking lot is full of cars while most nearby office lots are empty.  Their employment page notes "immediate openings to support a fast-paced launch vehicle development and flight test program".

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 12/05/2012 09:55 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2631
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 939
  • Likes Given: 172
Re: SWORDS nanosat launch vehicle
« Reply #4 on: 12/05/2012 08:52 pm »
The following presentation mentions something called "Garvey Space", and something bigger named "Super Strypi". 

For Super Strypi see following thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27685.0

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: SWORDS nanosat launch vehicle
« Reply #5 on: 12/06/2012 02:14 am »
Garvey would probably only be involved in testing the engine. They have a number of small reusable rockets that they hire out for testing new engines and avionics.

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351
Re: SWORDS nanosat launch vehicle
« Reply #6 on: 12/07/2012 03:30 pm »
How about this?  Chris reported on something that looks like SWORDS, called RSLV and run by KT Engineering, six years ago!  The aerospike engine part may or may not have been adapted for SWORDS, but the tank setup looks similar.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/11/rslv-progress-potential-vse-bonus/
Here's the original story in the Marshall Star, which includes an interesting photo of one of the odd-shaped tanks. 
http://marshallstar.msfc.nasa.gov/11-9-06.pdf
Note the stainless steel!

Interesting that the story says that the Air Force "provided" the 20Klbf test engine.  I wonder where that came from.  Here is a story, with a photo, of the engine being tested at Marshall.  It does look like the plume produced by a linear-type aerospike engine - though the engine itself was carefully not photographed! 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060418010238.htm
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/images/content/146999main_lox_203847_3000x2400.jpg

According to the following story, RSLV was still an ongoing thing as recently as one year ago.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/pdf/593247main_sep30-2011.pdf
Google-ing reveals that RSLV has been getting steady, though relatively small, earmarks and other contract funding for years, some from NASA, some from the Air Force.  The company is focused on ways to cut manufacturing costs, and they've done a lot of testing.

I also now see that KT Engineering was involved in the FALCON (Force Application and Launch from CONtinental United States) program.  In November 2003, they won a phase one contract for small launch vehicle development work.  The launch vehicle would either boost a hypersonic vehicle (HTV is part of the hypersonic vehicle testing) or launch small payloads to orbit.  The requirement was low-cost, responsive launch to lift 450 kg to LEO for less than $5 million. 

Other FALCON phase one winners include AirLaunch, Andrews Space,   Exquadrum Inc., Lockheed Martin., Microcosm, Orbital Sciences, Schafer Corp., and SpaceX.  An interesting list.

Only SpaceX, AirLaunch, and Lockheed Martin went on to Phase Two.  As near as I can tell, the FALCON SLV effort produced only a Falcon 1 explosion, a series of AirLaunch drop tests, and a hybrid motor test firing or two by Lockheed.   

As for RSLV/SWORDS, this looks like an interesting concept, especially the low-cost aspect, but it seems fair to predict that flight control could be a challenge during the initial flight.   

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 12/07/2012 07:21 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline crab nebula2

  • Member
  • Posts: 32
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SWORDS nanosat launch vehicle
« Reply #7 on: 12/09/2012 05:14 pm »
there are a number of odd things about this project. to begin with, the radially segmented tank design for a pressurized tank would seem to weigh more than a conventional cylindrical tank and minimum weight is critical for achieving orbit with a pressure feed launcher. next, why use methane instead of alcohol or kerosine. its lower density requires larger heavier tanks for a small isp gain. finally, using differential throttle for attitude control i can see for yaw and pitch control, but what about roll?

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351
Re: SWORDS nanosat launch vehicle
« Reply #8 on: 12/09/2012 06:08 pm »
there are a number of odd things about this project. to begin with, the radially segmented tank design for a pressurized tank would seem to weigh more than a conventional cylindrical tank and minimum weight is critical for achieving orbit with a pressure feed launcher. next, why use methane instead of alcohol or kerosine. its lower density requires larger heavier tanks for a small isp gain. finally, using differential throttle for attitude control i can see for yaw and pitch control, but what about roll?

It seems that low cost is the driver here, which may explain some design choices.  They talked about cheap cast injectors, for example.  They wanted to use stainless steel tanks made by a company that makes stainless steel tanks for tank trucks and other applications, to drive down costs.  Etc.  (It isn't clear to me, BTW, that the radially segmented tank idea has been retained for SWORDS.)  The tridyne system cuts pressurant gas mass in half, and perhaps the resulting heated gas could power small roll control thrusters, but your guess is as good as mine when it comes to methane.  NASA money was available for methane research (methane/LOX can be stored in space easier than LH2/LOX or RP/LOX), so that may provide one explanation. 

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 12/09/2012 06:11 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline bubbagret

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 155
  • Liked: 39
  • Likes Given: 74
Re: SWORDS nanosat launch vehicle
« Reply #9 on: 12/09/2012 07:11 pm »
there are a number of odd things about this project. to begin with, the radially segmented tank design for a pressurized tank would seem to weigh more than a conventional cylindrical tank and minimum weight is critical for achieving orbit with a pressure feed launcher. next, why use methane instead of alcohol or kerosine. its lower density requires larger heavier tanks for a small isp gain. finally, using differential throttle for attitude control i can see for yaw and pitch control, but what about roll?

I believe it is all about the pressure. Look at the radial stress on each individual tank section as opposed to having a single large diameter cylinder. Very important in a pressure fed vehicle. The wall thickness of each small radius section could be considerably thinner than a single large cylinder. Shaping each tank as a wedge also makes sense. If each section is designed to fit tightly against the next, then the flat wall in between could be made very thin, acting as only a diaphragm under linear tension. As a complete unit, it seems as if it could be a very thin and light weight yet extremely strong structure designed to carry a great deal of pressure. Also the end caps for each tank, even though a relatively complex shape, would be considerably smaller than a single large diameter unit. Smaller equals much easier and cheaper to manufacture.

Offline crab nebula2

  • Member
  • Posts: 32
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SWORDS nanosat launch vehicle
« Reply #10 on: 12/10/2012 12:03 am »
thanks for your response ed, all your points make sense. one more question, does anyone know if this group has done any test flights ? it takes alot more than a reliable engine to achieve controlled supersonic flight. look at all the challenges armadillo has had with their stig vehicle.

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351
Re: SWORDS nanosat launch vehicle
« Reply #11 on: 12/17/2012 12:46 am »
thanks for your response ed, all your points make sense. one more question, does anyone know if this group has done any test flights ? it takes alot more than a reliable engine to achieve controlled supersonic flight. look at all the challenges armadillo has had with their stig vehicle.

I've learned that NASA MSFC is contributing to this SWORDS project, providing some engineering support in certain key areas.  This was underway in mid-2012 and may be ongoing. 

Meanwhile, KT Engineering itself says that its staff has "a wealth of real-world experience associated with the design, fabrication, and operation of aerospace vehicles including Atlas, Athena, Titan, Space Shuttle, STS Centaur, X-33, X-37, and X-40A".​  As mentioned previously, there seem to be a number of ex-Lockheed and Lockheed Martin types on board.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 12/17/2012 02:20 am by edkyle99 »

Offline KSC Sage

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 521
  • Liked: 1590
  • Likes Given: 333
Re: SWORDS nanosat launch vehicle
« Reply #12 on: 04/13/2013 02:55 am »
thanks for your response ed, all your points make sense. one more question, does anyone know if this group has done any test flights ? it takes alot more than a reliable engine to achieve controlled supersonic flight. look at all the challenges armadillo has had with their stig vehicle.

No test flights yet.  Look for one NET late 2014.

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351
Re: SWORDS nanosat launch vehicle
« Reply #13 on: 07/25/2013 03:44 am »
Here are some images from the web of SWORDS wind tunnel testing at MSFC.   
http://gcd.larc.nasa.gov/projects/soldier-warfighter-operationally-responsive-deployer-for-space-swords/
SWORDS appears to have sprouted fins.

The following press release tells us that Quantum Research International has been selected as SWORDS prime contractor.  KT Engineering and Teledyne Brown Engineering are the key subcontractors.
http://www.quantum-intl.com/news/pr_SWORDS2013.html

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 07/25/2013 03:54 am by edkyle99 »

Offline fatjohn1408

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 325
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: SWORDS nanosat launch vehicle
« Reply #14 on: 07/25/2013 07:51 am »
So what is the presumed payload for such a thing?
Why would you need a responsive launch system? If you want a picture from somewhere there are already satellites everywhere that do that. Same for communication.
There's only one thing I can imagine: Take out enemy satellites. Hope they think about some kind of steered magnet that will just take down electricity on the satellite and not about explosives that will cause debris fields.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SWORDS nanosat launch vehicle
« Reply #15 on: 07/25/2013 02:54 pm »
Nanosats, not ASATs

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351
Re: SWORDS nanosat launch vehicle
« Reply #16 on: 07/25/2013 04:09 pm »
Nanosats, not ASATs
Right.  SWORDS and the like would in part be for replacing capability lost when the other guy got your satellite with an ASAT.  It would also allow, in theory, a way to provide dedicated (not shared) capability in a crises.

Be all of that as it may, my interest in this thing is the attempt to create a small, cheap launch vehicle.  There are some off-the-wall ideas here being attempted by some non-standard players.  That's terrific. 

Also, and I'll just come out and admit it, I like stainless steel. :)

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 07/25/2013 04:14 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10346
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2426
  • Likes Given: 13596
Re: SWORDS nanosat launch vehicle
« Reply #17 on: 08/26/2013 09:05 am »
Nanosats, not ASATs
Right.  SWORDS and the like would in part be for replacing capability lost when the other guy got your satellite with an ASAT.  It would also allow, in theory, a way to provide dedicated (not shared) capability in a crises.

Be all of that as it may, my interest in this thing is the attempt to create a small, cheap launch vehicle.  There are some off-the-wall ideas here being attempted by some non-standard players.  That's terrific. 

Also, and I'll just come out and admit it, I like stainless steel. :)

 - Ed Kyle
This idea of "responsive space" has been around for about a decade. Loosely it's the idea of adding additional satellite assets over a specific area for a specific period.

So the theater commander would request additional short term comms/video/EW capability to assist ground, sea and air assets in theater.

But as others have pointed out most of the theaters the US are active in are not on 28 deg lat.

If this system gets to production (and that's a pretty big if, given the history of this subject) you're either looking at an "austere" launch pad you can set up in country (IMHO not entirely impossible given the number of battlefield rockets the US had driving around West Germany in the Cold War) or a table of how much payload you're going to lose in the plane change from there. Limiting the battlefields the US is prepared to fight on to being at 28deg seems a bit limiting to me.  :)

BTW this is all academic without the on-the-shelf payloads to handle those functions. Ideally you're looking at software configuration only, or at most clipping a set of modules together into a framework to mix-n-match capability (More radio DF, less comms relay, more IR than visible etc). That brings up the need for attitude control or thrusters. Attitude only could be done with CMG's but actual delta v means thrust and hypergols are nasty and expensive. Tridyne again?

I'm not sure what that exhaust picture shows. I thought all good rocket engines (even linear plug nozzles) were known by the well formed "shock diamonds" in the exhaust. That picture suggests either the flow is off axis or they are demonstrating some kind of differential steering.

Stainless steel tanks, new tank architecture, plug nozzle engines. This is quite some cutting edge tech if you want to keep costs down on an expendable.

Personally I like CRES too, if you can tolerate the fact being about 3x as strong it only needs a section 1/3 the thickness and the application can tolerate that (like the original Atlas and current Centaur tanks). That new tank architecture may be the most advanced thing to fly (as opposed to the trilobial mess of the X33) in years.  :)

Exciting stuff but the history of this idea is long, messy and littered with unfulfilled promise. :(


 
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SWORDS nanosat launch vehicle
« Reply #18 on: 08/26/2013 11:52 am »
Attitude only could be done with CMG's

Still need thrusters or power for magnetic torque bars for desaturation.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10346
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2426
  • Likes Given: 13596
Re: SWORDS nanosat launch vehicle
« Reply #19 on: 08/26/2013 01:46 pm »
Attitude only could be done with CMG's

Still need thrusters or power for magnetic torque bars for desaturation.
True but it would eliminate running out of propellant as a life ending failure mode. CMGs worked pretty well on Skylab and are working quite well on ISS.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SWORDS nanosat launch vehicle
« Reply #20 on: 08/26/2013 01:54 pm »

True but it would eliminate running out of propellant as a life ending failure mode. CMGs worked pretty well on Skylab and are working quite well on ISS.


Not really.  Skylab had GN2 thrusters for desaturation and the ISS has Progress tankers bringing up prop for the SM thrusters and the Progress themselves are used for desaturation.

Skylab would have run out of GN2 if it weren't for some unusual weather conditions that allowed NASA to load 25% more than planned.  Skylab ended up using 50% of the load before the first crew visit.

Magnetic torque bars and a low earth orbit is the only way to get out of using thrusters with CMG's.  Kepler has thrusters.
« Last Edit: 08/26/2013 01:58 pm by Jim »

Offline dchill

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 116
  • Liked: 39
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: SWORDS nanosat launch vehicle
« Reply #21 on: 08/26/2013 02:17 pm »
...
Magnetic torque bars and a low earth orbit is the only way to get out of using thrusters with CMG's.  Kepler has thrusters.

I suppose using gravity gradient would be a stretch.  (Pun intended)

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: SWORDS nanosat launch vehicle
« Reply #22 on: 08/26/2013 06:45 pm »
For LEO, I have always wondered if control surfaces (paddles and rudders) could be used.

I suspect, like gravity gradient stabilization, the effect is so weak that once the CMG's get saturated you would have to wait weeks if not moths to de-saturate them. 
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10346
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2426
  • Likes Given: 13596
Re: SWORDS nanosat launch vehicle
« Reply #23 on: 08/26/2013 06:55 pm »
Magnetic torque bars and a low earth orbit is the only way to get out of using thrusters with CMG's.  Kepler has thrusters.

Agreed. But TBH LEO is where I would expect most of these payloads to be placed. Above that level you have the GPS constellation and (IIRC) the Iridium constellation before you get to GEO.

AFAIK nothing in the major existing constellations is small enough to be launched on this, unless someone is planning to re-configure those functions as some kind of "swarm" concept that can be launched in small sections.

Outside of LEO I would expect thrusters would be needed to dump momentum. One benefit of this payload size might be people will implement a one sensor, one payload approach. But without launching near the theater of operations there will be likely be a payload hit [edit from 28degs.
 
Given the mass limits an emphasis on passive devices like gravity gradient stabilization and body mounted solar cells seems quite a good idea.]
« Last Edit: 08/26/2013 09:17 pm by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: SWORDS nanosat launch vehicle
« Reply #24 on: 08/27/2013 12:09 pm »
Honestly, when providing communications in regional conflicts, short of GTO, a highly eccentric orbit makes sense. It can be tailored to a geographic region and provides the most dwell time over the battle space.

Look up Blue Scout and Emergency Rocket Communications System (ERCS).
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10346
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2426
  • Likes Given: 13596
Re: SWORDS nanosat launch vehicle
« Reply #25 on: 09/21/2013 10:15 am »
Honestly, when providing communications in regional conflicts, short of GTO, a highly eccentric orbit makes sense. It can be tailored to a geographic region and provides the most dwell time over the battle space.
True.

I'm also guessing that as the satellite is spending less time in the (relatively) more dense lower atmosphere it's lifetime would also be improved.

My instinct remains for a payload this size you should avoid thrusters and use CMGs, magnotorquers and passive mechanisms like gravity gradient to control attitude

However with no thruster you now need the LV to ensure it's in the right orbital plane.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline KSC Sage

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 521
  • Liked: 1590
  • Likes Given: 333
Re: SWORDS nanosat launch vehicle
« Reply #26 on: 03/17/2014 11:51 am »
SWORDS has been cancelled.  It was cancelled last Thursday, 13 March 2014.  The KTE horizontal engine testing will run through completion and then the program will be totally closed up by September this year.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SWORDS nanosat launch vehicle
« Reply #27 on: 03/17/2014 01:39 pm »
SWORDS has been cancelled.  It was cancelled last Thursday, 13 March 2014.  The KTE horizontal engine testing will run through completion and then the program will be totally closed up by September this year.

That is a good thing.  Never should have got as far as it did.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6806
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3978
  • Likes Given: 1674
Re: SWORDS nanosat launch vehicle
« Reply #28 on: 03/18/2014 01:23 am »
SWORDS has been cancelled.  It was cancelled last Thursday, 13 March 2014.  The KTE horizontal engine testing will run through completion and then the program will be totally closed up by September this year.

That is a good thing.  Never should have got as far as it did.

Good thing they cancelled the NanoSat Launch Centennial Challenge, due to SWORDS being such a sure thing...

Can't say I'm totally surprised though. They've been getting paid for "working on" SWORDS and its predecessors under various contracts (and various names) for nearly a decade now, and I don't think I've seen anything to show for it.

~Jon

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351
Re: SWORDS nanosat launch vehicle
« Reply #29 on: 03/18/2014 02:41 am »
SWORDS has been cancelled.  It was cancelled last Thursday, 13 March 2014.  The KTE horizontal engine testing will run through completion and then the program will be totally closed up by September this year.
Has a reason been given for the cancellation?

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10286
  • Liked: 698
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: SWORDS nanosat launch vehicle
« Reply #30 on: 03/18/2014 03:00 am »
With "free" Minotaurs available, why would DoD invest in a new launcher?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SWORDS nanosat launch vehicle
« Reply #31 on: 03/18/2014 12:25 pm »
With "free" Minotaurs available, why would DoD invest in a new launcher?


Because the DOD is not monolithic and SWORDS was an Army project.  Also, Minotaurs are not transportable.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6806
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3978
  • Likes Given: 1674
Re: SWORDS nanosat launch vehicle
« Reply #32 on: 03/18/2014 04:35 pm »
With "free" Minotaurs available, why would DoD invest in a new launcher?


Because the DOD is not monolithic and SWORDS was an Army project.  Also, Minotaurs are not transportable.

SWORDS was also focused on much smaller payloads than a Minotaur launches. About 10x smaller payloads. Not that SWORDS was the right solution, but there are a lot of people interested in having dedicated nanosat or smallsat launch vehicles (ie in the sub 100kg to LEO range).

~Jon

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351
Re: SWORDS nanosat launch vehicle
« Reply #33 on: 03/19/2014 02:16 pm »
Here's a statement by Lt. Gen. David L. Mann, Commanding General, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command and Army Forces Strategic Command that was made on March 12, 2014 before the Committee on Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the U.S. Senate.  Lt. Gen. Mann describes SWORDS as an ongoing project that has NASA support.
http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Mann_03-12-14.pdf

Here, also, is a presentation on SWORDS from mid-2013 that provides more details than I've seen elsewhere.
http://smdsymposium.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Rich-White-presentation.pdf

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 03/19/2014 02:47 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1705
  • Liked: 2181
  • Likes Given: 659
Re: SWORDS nanosat launch vehicle
« Reply #34 on: 03/19/2014 11:39 pm »
SWORDS has been cancelled.  It was cancelled last Thursday, 13 March 2014.  The KTE horizontal engine testing will run through completion and then the program will be totally closed up by September this year.
Has a reason been given for the cancellation?

 - Ed Kyle

One reason given was the cost of tanks was coming in at 10x what they could afford.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6806
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3978
  • Likes Given: 1674
Re: SWORDS nanosat launch vehicle
« Reply #35 on: 04/29/2014 02:08 am »
SWORDS has been cancelled.  It was cancelled last Thursday, 13 March 2014.  The KTE horizontal engine testing will run through completion and then the program will be totally closed up by September this year.
Has a reason been given for the cancellation?

 - Ed Kyle

One reason given was the cost of tanks was coming in at 10x what they could afford.

That's amusingly ironic, since the "low cost tanks" were a key part of why they selected such a weird design concept...

~Jon

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1