I'm disappointed they picked Boeing (and AR), but not surprised.But if they wanted some results? How can you expect better food with the same chefs in the kitchen? (or however the saying goes) But perhaps they will actually deliver something this time.
Jeff Foust @jeff_foustReplying to @thehighfrontierThe DARPA release includes the 10 flights/10 days test requirement in phase 3.4:55 pm · 24 May 2017
Quote from: Lars-J on 05/24/2017 04:07 pmI'm disappointed they picked Boeing (and AR), but not surprised.But if they wanted some results? How can you expect better food with the same chefs in the kitchen? (or however the saying goes) But perhaps they will actually deliver something this time.You do know Boeing make the X-37B and that apparently has worked very well for the AF so far.
Quote from: Star One on 05/24/2017 04:18 pmQuote from: Lars-J on 05/24/2017 04:07 pmI'm disappointed they picked Boeing (and AR), but not surprised.But if they wanted some results? How can you expect better food with the same chefs in the kitchen? (or however the saying goes) But perhaps they will actually deliver something this time.You do know Boeing make the X-37B and that apparently has worked very well for the AF so far.X-37B is a payload (not a launch vehicle) and almost 20 years old, but sure. Boeing is competent when they are properly motivated, but I question whether developing such a rapid launch system is in their current DNA. Prove me wrong, Boeing!
It is reminiscent of the original booster/orbiter proposal for the STS. Wonder how hard it would be to put a 37b on there.
Quote from: Kansan52 on 05/24/2017 05:14 pmIt is reminiscent of the original booster/orbiter proposal for the STS. Wonder how hard it would be to put a 37b on there.But X-37B is not a stage, it is a spacecraft with limited maneuvering capability. Whatever is used as a 2nd stage will need 5-6(?) km/s of delta-v to achieve orbit.
I am more concerned about their engine partners plans to build engines out of spare parts found left around their workshops.
... I question whether developing such a rapid launch system is in their current DNA. Prove me wrong, Boeing!
Hydrolox seems to be a strange choice for this vehicle as does using a poor mass-to-weight engine that is not re-startable. Would love to hear more about why this technology was selected versus the other candidates. There could be a protest that would help to illuminate this decision.Does DARPA usually release public information about its selections?
Quote from: AncientU on 05/24/2017 05:04 pmHydrolox seems to be a strange choice for this vehicle as does using a poor mass-to-weight engine that is not re-startable. Would love to hear more about why this technology was selected versus the other candidates. There could be a protest that would help to illuminate this decision.Does DARPA usually release public information about its selections?Hydrolox isn't surprising as it's proven to be rapid reuse-friendly (DC-X, New Shepard). But I'm surprised they didn't go with BE-3. AJRD must have told Boeing that the SSME can do 10 flights with nothing more than daily inspections.
I really worry about AJRD's involvement in this. They aren't in a good position especially if they lose the Vulcan contract, so who knows what promises they've made to get the job.
Quote from: Star One on 05/24/2017 05:41 pmI really worry about AJRD's involvement in this. They aren't in a good position especially if they lose the Vulcan contract, so who knows what promises they've made to get the job.Why worry? They have 35 year old parts (early versions of SSME) to build this thing from. What could possibly go wrong?
Here is an article on this announcement:http://www.space.com/36985-darpa-xs-1-spaceplane-boeing-phantom-express.htmlIt will be called the Phantom Express.
A ground-based engine test will be included, to show the feasibility of firing the engine 10 times in 10 days, DARPA officials said.
Quote from: Lars-J on 05/24/2017 05:44 pmQuote from: Star One on 05/24/2017 05:41 pmI really worry about AJRD's involvement in this. They aren't in a good position especially if they lose the Vulcan contract, so who knows what promises they've made to get the job.Why worry? They have 35 year old parts (early versions of SSME) to build this thing from. What could possibly go wrong? Tell me again who in DARPA thought this would be a good idea?
AJR Presser:QuoteAerojet Rocketdyne, a subsidiary of Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:AJRD), was selected to provide the main propulsion for the Boeing and the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) reusable Experimental Spaceplane (XS-1). Aerojet Rocketdyne is a member of the Boeing team that recently announced an agreement to collaborate with DARPA to design, build and test a technology demonstrator for the agency's XS-1 program.The reusable experimental spaceplane is designed to deliver small satellites into orbit with high launch responsiveness. The main propulsion is based on the legacy space shuttle main engines (SSME)."As one of the world's most reliable rocket engines, the SSME is a smart choice to power the XS-1 launch vehicle," said Aerojet Rocketdyne CEO and President Eileen Drake. "This engine has a demonstrated track record of solid performance and proven reusability."For the XS-1 program, Aerojet Rocketdyne is providing two engines with legacy shuttle flight experience to demonstrate reusability, a wide operating range and rapid turnarounds. These engines will be designated as AR-22 engines and will be assembled from parts that remained in both Aerojet Rocketdyne and NASA inventories from early versions of the SSME engines. Assembly and ground testing will take place at NASA's Stennis Space Center in Mississippi.http://spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=50920How can this be a good idea?
Aerojet Rocketdyne, a subsidiary of Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:AJRD), was selected to provide the main propulsion for the Boeing and the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) reusable Experimental Spaceplane (XS-1). Aerojet Rocketdyne is a member of the Boeing team that recently announced an agreement to collaborate with DARPA to design, build and test a technology demonstrator for the agency's XS-1 program.The reusable experimental spaceplane is designed to deliver small satellites into orbit with high launch responsiveness. The main propulsion is based on the legacy space shuttle main engines (SSME)."As one of the world's most reliable rocket engines, the SSME is a smart choice to power the XS-1 launch vehicle," said Aerojet Rocketdyne CEO and President Eileen Drake. "This engine has a demonstrated track record of solid performance and proven reusability."For the XS-1 program, Aerojet Rocketdyne is providing two engines with legacy shuttle flight experience to demonstrate reusability, a wide operating range and rapid turnarounds. These engines will be designated as AR-22 engines and will be assembled from parts that remained in both Aerojet Rocketdyne and NASA inventories from early versions of the SSME engines. Assembly and ground testing will take place at NASA's Stennis Space Center in Mississippi.