So far 2012 has been a very interesting year for commercial space flight, I wonder what the coming years will bring us.
It's funny how we get into "the future" without even realizing it.
If this thing really does use two kerosene/LOX engines..This makes me wonder if the first stage isn't a hybrid...
Quote from: edkyle99 on 07/12/2012 05:24 pmIf 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
Quote from: Ronsmytheiii on 07/11/2012 10:51 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 07/11/2012 03:33 pmSee the following press releases and link on the announcement of LauncherOne, yesterday:http://www.virgingalactic.com/news/item/xxx/http://www.virgingalactic.com/launcheronei 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
Quote from: yg1968 on 07/11/2012 03:33 pmSee the following press releases and link on the announcement of LauncherOne, yesterday:http://www.virgingalactic.com/news/item/xxx/http://www.virgingalactic.com/launcheronei 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.
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
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.
Lockheed Martin/Air Force
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
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.
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.
DOD also has an interest:http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/TTO/Programs/Space_Enabled_Effects_for_Military_Engagements_%28SeeMe%29.aspx
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_07_11_2012_p0-475618.xml
QuoteLauncherOne 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.
Quote from: docmordrid on 07/12/2012 09:20 pmQuoteLauncherOne 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?
That is about 13.6 mT for LaucherOne. IMO Ed's propellant mass fraction estimate is a bit optimistic.
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 07/12/2012 08:02 pmThat 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?
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?