Author Topic: XCOR and the Lynx rocket  (Read 610739 times)

Offline Moe Grills

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 780
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: XCOR and the Lynx rocket
« Reply #160 on: 10/11/2011 07:49 pm »
  I don't know if XCOR's Lynx will take to the air next year or not; but it looks promising.

That said, I have to ask if XCOR's management have posted any design for
a true spacecraft that could be called?.....(example) SuperLynx?

Superlynx: (hypothetical description) A larger, heavier, more powerful version of the Lynx, perhaps with THREE rocket motors; able to carry at least four passengers and two crew upto 100km altitude and higher....perhaps higher than 100 miles up per suborbital flight.

Offline NotGncDude

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 485
  • V
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: XCOR and the Lynx rocket
« Reply #161 on: 10/11/2011 09:29 pm »
  I don't know if XCOR's Lynx will take to the air next year or not; but it looks promising.

That said, I have to ask if XCOR's management have posted any design for
a true spacecraft that could be called?.....(example) SuperLynx?

Superlynx: (hypothetical description) A larger, heavier, more powerful version of the Lynx, perhaps with THREE rocket motors; able to carry at least four passengers and two crew upto 100km altitude and higher....perhaps higher than 100 miles up per suborbital flight.

Lynx Mark II will reach 100km thanks to performance improvement. Pretty much the same airframe, so only 1 passenger + pilot. Is that what you mean, or something bigger?

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: XCOR and the Lynx rocket
« Reply #162 on: 10/11/2011 11:12 pm »
.. Granted i only calculated revenues and not expenses, which I also admitted, and didnt go into detail on them because I dont have any hard fast numbers to guesstimate on so anything I said there would be pure WAG.
My point was more towards the likelihood of any operator of theirs having a steady and long backlog of customers, and being able to service them on a continuous basis without major interruptions. Regardless of market research left and right, i have a hard time believing that large amounts of people will show up with that much cash in hand to fly on something that can be compared to an experimental airplane, safety wise.

I would think that once such a service starts, there will be initial bunch of enthusiasts showing up for tickets, but i'm thinking it will taper off fairly quickly after that.

Probably the closest analog to the experience offered with a well established market is tandem skydives, and that market is not really enormous, although pretty steady in most dropzones now, weather permitting. The ticket price is far, far smaller though.

Not sure why you felt the need to make any assumptions about my experiences with servicing airplanes ? ( As it happens, i have performed ad-hoc electronics repairs on a certain twin engine turboprop, which is not at all relevant in this context )
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Diagoras

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 99
Re: XCOR and the Lynx rocket
« Reply #163 on: 10/12/2011 12:38 pm »
.. Granted i only calculated revenues and not expenses, which I also admitted, and didnt go into detail on them because I dont have any hard fast numbers to guesstimate on so anything I said there would be pure WAG.
My point was more towards the likelihood of any operator of theirs having a steady and long backlog of customers, and being able to service them on a continuous basis without major interruptions. Regardless of market research left and right, i have a hard time believing that large amounts of people will show up with that much cash in hand to fly on something that can be compared to an experimental airplane, safety wise.

I would think that once such a service starts, there will be initial bunch of enthusiasts showing up for tickets, but i'm thinking it will taper off fairly quickly after that.

Probably the closest analog to the experience offered with a well established market is tandem skydives, and that market is not really enormous, although pretty steady in most dropzones now, weather permitting. The ticket price is far, far smaller though.

Not sure why you felt the need to make any assumptions about my experiences with servicing airplanes ? ( As it happens, i have performed ad-hoc electronics repairs on a certain twin engine turboprop, which is not at all relevant in this context )

I think their main targeted customer base is research, if that changes your analysis.
"It’s the typical binary world of 'NASA is great' or 'cancel the space program,' with no nuance or understanding of the underlying issues and pathologies of the space industrial complex."

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: XCOR and the Lynx rocket
« Reply #164 on: 10/12/2011 04:53 pm »
I actually agree that Lynx should be able to make a good profit (at suborbital tourism). And I think it could do so even when the ticket price gets down to only $10k-$20k, and at that price level, there are a LOT of (regular, middle-class) people who would put riding into space on their bucket list. I mean, just look at how many people go on cruises, who go skydiving, etc. By being able to hook into the middle class, suborbital tourism could become big business, really big. Tens of thousands of flights per year (if the price can get down below $20k) isn't unrealistic, IMHO.

I agree with this.

The issue is the same as with Concorde - how to make money with a cool aircraft - and I believe Lynx does have a great chance at success.

And I continue to believe that selling Lynx airframes to a league that races from the runway to 50 kilometers altitude is a potential viable market.

Perhaps market Lynx airframes to wealthy Formula 1 and NASCAR owners who might be getting bored with auto racing. If the $10 million per vehicle figure suggested above is accurate, there are plenty of auto racing teams that can afford to do this.

Then fly college science missions as a PR move, on the side.

Edit to add: Do the above and I believe demand for pure tourist flights would increase, due to the publicity.
« Last Edit: 10/12/2011 04:58 pm by Bill White »
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: XCOR and the Lynx rocket
« Reply #165 on: 10/12/2011 05:08 pm »
Imagine, too, of the science that could be done if space plasma researchers had their own Lynx. How much would it cost for them to lease a Lynx, a pilot or two, and a ground crew for a year or three? Much less than an Atlas V launch. Our understanding of the ionosphere, aurora, etc. could be greatly expanded by such a capability (which can't be studied by satellites directly because the altitude is too low and can only be very briefly studied by sounding rockets... a reusable sounding rocket which can fly multiple times a day with an easily recoverable payload is what Lynx is).

It kind of reminds me of Sofia, except would likely be much cheaper.
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 Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: XCOR and the Lynx rocket
« Reply #166 on: 10/12/2011 05:37 pm »
I would think that the Big 10-11-12 could buy a single Lynx easily enough?

Then Illinois, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin and so forth could collaborate on experiments.
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline Moe Grills

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 780
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: XCOR and the Lynx rocket
« Reply #167 on: 10/12/2011 11:36 pm »
  I don't know if XCOR's Lynx will take to the air next year or not; but it looks promising.

That said, I have to ask if XCOR's management have posted any design for
a true spacecraft that could be called?.....(example) SuperLynx?

Superlynx: (hypothetical description) A larger, heavier, more powerful version of the Lynx, perhaps with THREE rocket motors; able to carry at least four passengers and two crew upto 100km altitude and higher....perhaps higher than 100 miles up per suborbital flight.

Lynx Mark II will reach 100km thanks to performance improvement. Pretty much the same airframe, so only 1 passenger + pilot. Is that what you mean, or something bigger?


I messed up the facts. I'm sorry.

The Lynx Mark I has four engines, which will deliver 11,600Ibf thrust combined at high altitude.
The Lynx Mark II will go to 100km+, as you stated.

But I was pondering what else Mr. Greason has planned?
How will the Lynx evolve beyond the Mark II?

A multi-passenger spacecraft  (Mark III? Super Lynx?) with three LH2/LOX engines delivering a total 90,000Ibf thrust?
Is that a possibility?
 

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: XCOR and the Lynx rocket
« Reply #168 on: 10/12/2011 11:47 pm »
Well, I'm sure they probably have liquid hydrogen somewhere in their dreams of future spacecraft operations. They are gaining some experience with it. But I don't know about speculating about future versions right now. They're probably focusing on getting Lynx done properly, then on trying to find ways to sell as many of them as they can.

And they are, of course, doing liquid hydrogen/oxygen engine testing with ULA. And I do know they have some sort of plans for an reusable orbital HTHL craft of some sort (multi-stage, of course... and I'm not 100% sure it's horizontal take-off, but I strongly suspect it)... Nothing as firm as Lynx, though, which I believe is already being built.
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 docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: XCOR and the Lynx rocket
« Reply #169 on: 10/13/2011 12:16 am »
>
A multi-passenger spacecraft  (Mark III? Super Lynx?) with three LH2/LOX engines delivering a total 90,000Ibf thrust?
Is that a possibility?
Pardon the ads in this Aero TV video, but it directly addresses your question.

DM

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: XCOR and the Lynx rocket
« Reply #170 on: 10/13/2011 02:53 am »
I think their main targeted customer base is research, if that changes your analysis.
Oh, thats not an analysis, just random guessing on my part.

I have read them say that they are after research markets, and i just cant figure out where are all the researchers with money going to come from. Government funded research ? Privately funded ? What area of research ? And that would have to be a long-term sustainable revenue stream ..
But i know full well XCOR is a group of some very bright folks, and i would think they have their business case well together, so i probably just don't know what they know.

Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: XCOR and the Lynx rocket
« Reply #171 on: 10/13/2011 04:32 am »
 Off the top, XCOR has contracts with NASA, the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) and the Planetary Science Institute.
DM

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: XCOR and the Lynx rocket
« Reply #172 on: 10/14/2011 08:50 pm »
It kind of reminds me of Sofia, except would likely be much cheaper.

Yeah, don't count on it. Sofia didn't get as expensive as it did because of the airframe, but rather the instruments and optics. The cost of an aerometry/plasma physics driven Lynx would be driven by the experiments (and the team of scientists and engineers to support them and analyze the results). It would be definitely more productive per grant dollar than sounding rockets, but energy barrier of the high initial cost will be hard to overcome.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: XCOR and the Lynx rocket
« Reply #173 on: 10/14/2011 10:24 pm »
It kind of reminds me of Sofia, except would likely be much cheaper.

Yeah, don't count on it. Sofia didn't get as expensive as it did because of the airframe, but rather the instruments and optics. The cost of an aerometry/plasma physics driven Lynx would be driven by the experiments (and the team of scientists and engineers to support them and analyze the results). It would be definitely more productive per grant dollar than sounding rockets, but energy barrier of the high initial cost will be hard to overcome.
Lynx would necessarily have much smaller (and thus likely much cheaper) instruments, no bigger than high end amateur telescopes.
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 docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: XCOR and the Lynx rocket
« Reply #174 on: 10/15/2011 12:24 am »
There's more to an instrument than the size of the optics. Their quality, construction, being above the atmosphere and the sensors count for a helluva lot.
DM

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: XCOR and the Lynx rocket
« Reply #175 on: 10/15/2011 01:19 am »
There's more to an instrument than the size of the optics. Their quality, construction, being above the atmosphere and the sensors count for a helluva lot.
Well, yeah, of course. If you think I was saying otherwise, you misunderstood what I said.

But Sofia is big. For a similar quality and sensor type, a much smaller telescope (two orders of magnitude less area) or similar instrument would be considerably less expensive.
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 mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2173
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: XCOR and the Lynx rocket
« Reply #176 on: 10/16/2011 07:31 pm »
There's more to an instrument than the size of the optics. Their quality, construction, being above the atmosphere and the sensors count for a helluva lot.
Well, yeah, of course. If you think I was saying otherwise, you misunderstood what I said.

But Sofia is big. For a similar quality and sensor type, a much smaller telescope (two orders of magnitude less area) or similar instrument would be considerably less expensive.

What i'd really like to see with Lynx's astronomy missions would be two Lynx in formation with telescopes operating together as an interferometer.
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: XCOR and the Lynx rocket
« Reply #177 on: 10/16/2011 10:24 pm »
Lynx would necessarily have much smaller (and thus likely much cheaper) instruments, no bigger than high end amateur telescopes.

Nope. The size of the instrument counts not much for the cost. The fact that they have to be precise, reliably calibrated (not easy at all on a flight vehicle), and custom-built with expensive custom components all drive the hardware cost massively up. Plus, NASA or NSF never pay for an instrument without paying for the time to analyse the data (because otherwise, what's the point?), making the effective energy barrier even higher.

Take, for example, GALEX. It has a mass of 280 kg, precisely the rated external payload mass for Lynx Mark I. The mission, minus the Pegasus to launch it, cost just about $75 million. A dedicated plasma-science/aerometry Lynx (or UV/X-ray astronomy Lynx, etc) would likely end up costing a similar amount. That doesn't make it impossible, just not likely possible on anything less than an explorer-class mission budget.

Another factor driving cost and schedule for Sofia is that they are not registering it with the FAA as an experimental aircraft (long, off-topic story). This puts much more stringent safety requirements on the instruments, which is really killing the budget (e.g. really overcomplicated LN2 systems). If Xcor is expecting to fly paying customers, they'll likely have to get a non-experimental permit too, putting those same expensive requirements on any Lynx payloads.

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: XCOR and the Lynx rocket
« Reply #178 on: 10/16/2011 10:37 pm »
What i'd really like to see with Lynx's astronomy missions would be two Lynx in formation with telescopes operating together as an interferometer.

Well, that would be about the opposite of KISS: interferometry requires precision to about half the wavelength of the light being observed. Meaning, you would have to know the position and orientation of the two Lynxes to within ~150 nm for visual observations. That is really, really hard to do on the ground, and next to impossible for two aircraft being jostled around by, well, air.

Plus, I'm not that bullish about Lynx being used for operational astronomy; the pointing requirements are just too tight for real science (Lynx Mk.1 only guarantees +/- 2 degrees). On the other hand, it makes much more sense for testing instruments before putting them on a real spacecraft. AFAIK, that's what their deal with SwRI is for.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: XCOR and the Lynx rocket
« Reply #179 on: 10/16/2011 10:43 pm »
Lynx would necessarily have much smaller (and thus likely much cheaper) instruments, no bigger than high end amateur telescopes.

Nope. The size of the instrument counts not much for the cost. The fact that they have to be precise, reliably calibrated (not easy at all on a flight vehicle), and custom-built with expensive custom components all drive the hardware cost massively up....
Well, yeah, of course. If you think I was saying otherwise, you misunderstood what I said.
(Can't believe I have to say this AGAIN.)

A fancy, precise, reliably calibrated, custom-built with expensive custom components instrument which is 100 times larger than another fancy, precise, reliably calibrated, custom-built with expensive custom components instrument is going to be a considerably more expensive instrument.
« Last Edit: 10/16/2011 10:45 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

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0