Author Topic: Virgin Orbit's LauncherOne  (Read 154924 times)

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Re: Virgin Galactic's LauncherOne
« Reply #40 on: 07/12/2012 04:26 pm »
So far 2012 has been a very interesting year for commercial space flight, I wonder what the coming years will bring us.

Hopefully the coming years will see a lot higher fraction of the cool ideas that get announced turning into actual honest-to-goodness flying space hardware (like Dragon for instance). I know our life at Altius will be easier if there ends up being a diverse ecosystem of nanosat and microsat launch vehicles like Launcher One.

~Jon

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Virgin Galactic's LauncherOne
« Reply #41 on: 07/12/2012 04:51 pm »
It's funny how we get into "the future" without even realizing it. Scifi movies with fancy touch screens are no longer talking about the future. Suborbital space tourism is especially close to realization and I'm sure the price will drop through the next decade that middle class folks (highly motivated ones, of course) could go if they wanted to. We'll see at least partially reusable launch vehicles within the next decade (especially if you count airlaunch as partially reusable... we already have it), and quite likely from more than one player (Blue Origin, XCor, SpaceX, Lockheed Martin/Air Force, maybe someone like Armadillo Aerospace, etc). This will happen gradually enough, then we'll be in the "future" without really knowing it (and we already are... smartphones are everywhere... I remember ten, twelve years ago when I was the only one walking around staring at my touch screen, not EVERYONE is). People can't even navigate without GPS, now. Electric cars will become gradually more prevalent (batteries continue to advance while gasoline tends to increase in cost, especially with Asia developing), and even now I see at least half a dozen Priuses every time I go to or from work. Solar power gets a little cheaper every year (and is now a no-brainer if you live in, say, a place like Phoenix and pay time-of-day electricity). Before you know it, NASA will be sending people beyond LEO again for the first time in over 40 years.

We are entering the future, and it is good. It's a pretty telling sign when this sort of airlaunch proposal is almost yawn-worthy compared to a lot of other projects. Don't get me wrong, I really like it, I am absolutely not knocking it at all, but there have been a LOT of space projects announced lately, with significant funding and real hardware progress being made. We live in a really exciting time. Our economic troubles will eventually be behind us (as long as we put aside divisiveness and regain our will as a country to press forward), and if this is what we can accomplish even DURING a recession, then that's a very good sign.
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: Virgin Galactic's LauncherOne
« Reply #42 on: 07/12/2012 05:24 pm »
If this thing really does use two kerosene/LOX engines, then it should be able to lift more than 227 kg to LEO - assuming the 17 tonne GLOW is correct.  My guesstimate is 0.4 tonnes or better payload for a two-stage rocket with 0.92/0.90 stage propellant mass fractions and Merlin 1/Kestrel like specific impulse engine performance, though at lower thrust.  In fact, the first stage engine would like to produce RS-88 like thrust (that interesting engine proposed for LAS use by CST-100).  Dropping both stages to 0.90 PMF (to account for the small wings) still provides 0.37 tonnes to LEO.

This makes me wonder if the first stage isn't a hybrid, topped by a pressure-fed liquid stage.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 07/12/2012 05:27 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Carreidas 160

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 170
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Virgin Galactic's LauncherOne
« Reply #43 on: 07/12/2012 05:53 pm »
It's funny how we get into "the future" without even realizing it.

That's the great thing about technology, it's always a black swan. No one sees it coming and its impact is unpredictable.

We thought crazy new hardware would give us SSTOs, instead it was internet and computing that enabled efficient organizations to cut costs in designing and deploying "mundane" multistage rockets.

The Merlin engine no doubt benefits from being a 3D CAD design from the start, and the availability of advanced optimization and simulation, that wasn't there at the time of Apollo. Feedback between design and testing is much shorter and much more frequent.

Also, progress is never linear. Apollo was done in a decade. When decades after Apollo nothing new seemed to be happen, we thought we would forever be stranded in LEO. Now we're back in a renaissance. It goes in bursts.

(On the other hand, it remains to be seen whether Stratolaunch, Blue Origin, Skylon, etc. etc. will ever see the light of day)

OK, this was very off topic, back to LauncherOne :)

Offline MP99

Re: Virgin Galactic's LauncherOne
« Reply #44 on: 07/12/2012 06:42 pm »
If this thing really does use two kerosene/LOX engines..

This makes me wonder if the first stage isn't a hybrid...

A stupid question I'm sure, but could it be a hybrid with a solid oxidiser, and kerosene as the injected fluid?

cheers, Martin

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Virgin Galactic's LauncherOne
« Reply #45 on: 07/12/2012 06:58 pm »
If this thing really does use two kerosene/LOX engines..

This makes me wonder if the first stage isn't a hybrid...

A stupid question I'm sure, but could it be a hybrid with a solid oxidiser, and kerosene as the injected fluid?

cheers, Martin

I doubt it.  It is much more efficient to use a liquid oxidizer and solid fuel, as I understand things, since the oxidizer is the heavier propellant that could then be stored in a lighter tank, saving a lot of dry mass.

Looking back, Amroc and SpaceDev seem to have tested, over the years, a range of hybrid motors that would seem to match up with this first stage application (~50Klbf).  The second stage, as I mentioned, would almost certainly be a pressure fed, all-liquid, potentially restartable type, probably 5Klbf-ish). 

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 07/12/2012 07:02 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline synchrotron

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 302
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Virgin Galactic's LauncherOne
« Reply #46 on: 07/12/2012 07:31 pm »
See the following press releases and link on the announcement of LauncherOne, yesterday:

http://www.virgingalactic.com/news/item/xxx/

http://www.virgingalactic.com/launcherone

i dont understand where the idea of smaller, more powerful satellites comes from.  If we look at the comsat community, seems larger is the most profitable and therefore lucrative market.  SpaceX and OSC are both looking to larger launch vehicles while the smaller ones either disappear or have few launches. Looks like a make work program for Virgin.

There's actually been a real push by several companies (many of which were mentioned as customers of VG's) to develop low-cost, mass-producable LEO satellites for things like earth observation. While a bigger satellite will be more capable, you can typically only afford to put a small number of them up, which means for earth-observation that you get infrequent viewing opportunities. For several military and commercial applications, being able to get near-real-time satellite imaging data, even if it isn't as high of resolution, would be huge. I know the Army Nanosat program was working on this, and that's what SkyBox Imaging is doing to. The market for their services is far from proven, but SkyBox closed a nearly $100M funding round recently, and Planetary Resources is actually competing in a fairly similar niche.

Space isn't a male enhancement spam email--bigger isn't always better.

~Jon

DOD also has an interest:
http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/TTO/Programs/Space_Enabled_Effects_for_Military_Engagements_%28SeeMe%29.aspx

Offline synchrotron

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 302
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Virgin Galactic's LauncherOne
« Reply #47 on: 07/12/2012 07:33 pm »
You're making it too complicated. All you need to do to orbit at 80,000mph is to thrust away from the earth and enjoy weighing about 5 Gs at low orbit. To do it in 80 minutes you just need to do it about 22,000 miles up. Numbers vary according to how long you take to get to 80,000mph and the trajectory used.
 Or, he said 18,000 mph, and was misunderstood.

You need to thrust towards the Earth to orbit faster at a given altitude.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Virgin Galactic's LauncherOne
« Reply #48 on: 07/12/2012 07:34 pm »
Lockheed Martin/Air Force

What LM/Air Force project did you have in mind?

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: Virgin Galactic's LauncherOne
« Reply #49 on: 07/12/2012 08:02 pm »
If this thing really does use two kerosene/LOX engines, then it should be able to lift more than 227 kg to LEO - assuming the 17 tonne GLOW is correct.  My guesstimate is 0.4 tonnes or better payload for a two-stage rocket with 0.92/0.90 stage propellant mass fractions and Merlin 1/Kestrel like specific impulse engine performance, though at lower thrust.  In fact, the first stage engine would like to produce RS-88 like thrust (that interesting engine proposed for LAS use by CST-100).  Dropping both stages to 0.90 PMF (to account for the small wings) still provides 0.37 tonnes to LEO.

This makes me wonder if the first stage isn't a hybrid, topped by a pressure-fed liquid stage.

 - Ed Kyle

Some info from Aviation Week article on LauncherOne
Quote
The system is based on a 30,000-lb.-class, winged vehicle that will be carried to around 50,000 ft. for air launch by the WhiteKnightTwo mother ship developed as the carrier aircraft for the SpaceShipTwo (SS2) suborbital vehicle.

LauncherOne will be powered by a two-stage, liquid-fueled rocket, now in initial development by Virgin Galactic. The same rocket also is intended to ultimately replace the non-reusable RM2 hybrid motor that will power the SS2 to suborbit, Virgin says.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_07_11_2012_p0-475618.xml

That is about 13.6 mT for LaucherOne. IMO Ed's propellant  mass fraction estimate is a bit optimistic.

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Virgin Galactic's LauncherOne
« Reply #50 on: 07/12/2012 09:20 pm »
Quote
LauncherOne will be powered by a two-stage, liquid-fueled rocket, now in initial development by Virgin Galactic. The same rocket also is intended to ultimately replace the non-reusable RM2 hybrid motor that will power the SS2 to suborbit, Virgin says.

« Last Edit: 07/12/2012 09:21 pm by docmordrid »
DM


Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Re: Virgin Galactic's LauncherOne
« Reply #52 on: 07/12/2012 10:05 pm »
Quote
LauncherOne will be powered by a two-stage, liquid-fueled rocket, now in initial development by Virgin Galactic. The same rocket also is intended to ultimately replace the non-reusable RM2 hybrid motor that will power the SS2 to suborbit, Virgin says.



Woah, what?
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Virgin Galactic's LauncherOne
« Reply #53 on: 07/12/2012 10:33 pm »
Quote
LauncherOne will be powered by a two-stage, liquid-fueled rocket, now in initial development by Virgin Galactic. The same rocket also is intended to ultimately replace the non-reusable RM2 hybrid motor that will power the SS2 to suborbit, Virgin says.



Woah, what?
Virgin Galactic stock just went up with that news in my book. Liquid kerolox has much better operational benefits than hybrids. MUCH higher performance, better mass fraction, much faster turnaround, maybe even safer.

Not at all surprising, IMHO. It was only a matter of time, if they wanted to stay in business.

(Next shoe to fall will be DreamChaser, if it is successful, which I would be quite happy for...)
« Last Edit: 07/12/2012 10:37 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 Go4TLI

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 816
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Virgin Galactic's LauncherOne
« Reply #54 on: 07/12/2012 10:48 pm »
Doubtful

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Virgin Galactic's LauncherOne
« Reply #55 on: 07/13/2012 03:56 am »
That is about 13.6 mT for LaucherOne. IMO Ed's propellant  mass fraction estimate is a bit optimistic.

For a 13.6 tonne vehicle, the following are possibilities to get 500 lb to LEO.

Option 1
Stg1:  11.4 tonnes, PMF 0.89, ISPavg = 285s
Stg2:  1.8 tonnes, PMF 0.89, ISP = 325

Option 2
Stg1:  11.5 tonnes, PMF 0.89, ISPavg = 285s
Stg2:  1.7 tonnes, PMF 0.88, ISP = 330

Option 3
Stg1:  11.5 tonnes, PMF 0.88, ISPavg = 295s
Stg2:  1.7 tonnes, PMF 0.88, ISP = 330

Option 4
Stg1:  11.5 tonnes, PMF 0.88, ISPavg = 295s
Stg2:  1.7 tonnes, PMF 0.87, ISP = 337

... and so on.  Payload is of course most sensitive to second stage PMF and ISP.

How about liquid methane for fuel, and maybe something other than LOX for oxidizer?

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 07/13/2012 04:16 am by edkyle99 »

Offline Carreidas 160

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 170
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Virgin Galactic's LauncherOne
« Reply #56 on: 07/13/2012 10:18 am »

That is about 13.6 mT for LaucherOne. IMO Ed's propellant  mass fraction estimate is a bit optimistic.


I wonder why they choose a vehicle that is 3.4mT below the max WK2 payload. Is it because WK2 needs an extended range to drop the LauncherOne over the ocean, thereby limiting its max payload?

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Virgin Galactic's LauncherOne
« Reply #57 on: 07/13/2012 02:56 pm »

That is about 13.6 mT for LaucherOne. IMO Ed's propellant  mass fraction estimate is a bit optimistic.


I wonder why they choose a vehicle that is 3.4mT below the max WK2 payload. Is it because WK2 needs an extended range to drop the LauncherOne over the ocean, thereby limiting its max payload?

A safe starting point would be to match the proven SS2 mass, given by AvWeek as 13.6 tonnes.  They might work their way closer to the max 15.87 tonnes later, but center of mass may be as much a limit as total mass for this configuration.  I believe that Virgin mentioned plans for variations in the design.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Retired Downrange

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 976
  • Turks & Caicos Islands
  • Liked: 121
  • Likes Given: 153

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
Re: Virgin Galactic's LauncherOne
« Reply #59 on: 07/15/2012 04:47 pm »
Quote
I wonder why they choose a vehicle that is 3.4mT below the max WK2 payload. Is it because WK2 needs an extended range to drop the LauncherOne over the ocean, thereby limiting its max payload?

As with the Stargazer, the altitude at which the WKII can do a drop varies a lot with the payload weight. With a lighter rocket they can take it to a considerably higher altitude and thus reduce dynamic stress, as well as trying it out at the same altitude as the current SSII drop. Glad to see they are making the move to kerolox. The hybrid propulsion was rather expensive to refuel and not as safe as advertised.
« Last Edit: 07/15/2012 04:48 pm by vulture4 »

Tags:
 

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