Has anyone some more info on the SALVO vehicle? This is, what i have found so far (http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/salvo.htm):The SALVO (Small Air Launch Vehicle to Orbit) is a small launch vehicle developped by Ventions. Inc. for DARPA as a pathfinder for the ALASA launch vehicle.The vehicle will be air launched by a F-15E fighter after take off from Eglin, Florida. SALVO uses LOX and RP1 as propellants and battery-powered pumps for its rocket engines.It will be able to put a 5kg 3U Cubesat into orbit.The test vehicle was shipped in October 2014 to Eglin. First launch is planned for spring 2015.http://spacenews.com/40769darpa-developing-operational-pathfinder-for-alasa-air-launch-system/http://ventions.com/2014-news
April:Ventions begins cold-flow fill / drain and pressurization tests of SALVO 1st stage.
June:Ventions completes acceptance testing of SALVO 1st stage engines.
I have just found this article on SALVO with an artist impression:http://www.americaspace.com/?p=83211
This is quite astonishing.What is curious is to what extent this architecture (LOX/RP1, apparently 2 conventional stages) is a "pathfinder" for the ALSA (nitrous oxide and Ethyn in the same tank with nozzles between stages).
Quote from: john smith 19 on 06/17/2015 08:41 amThis is quite astonishing.What is curious is to what extent this architecture (LOX/RP1, apparently 2 conventional stages) is a "pathfinder" for the ALSA (nitrous oxide and Ethyn in the same tank with nozzles between stages). According to the DARPA project manager, the pathfinder role is for how to operate an air launch system effectively, not for the launcher technology itself.
The vehicle will be air launched by a F-15E fighter after take off from Eglin, Florida. SALVO uses LOX and RP1 as propellants and battery-powered pumps for its rocket engines.
Is there any additional information about the use of electric propellant pumps? After Rocketlabs announced they were going this route, I'm wondering if others were doing this first? It seems like it's a compelling alternative to solid or pressure-fed liquid for small rockets since turbopumps don't scale down all that well (mostly in terms of development expense).
At small sizes the compressed gas powered reciprocating pump from Flometrics (wonder what happened to them) confined the high pressure to a separate drive container tank.
At small sizes the compressed gas powered reciprocating pump from Flometrics (wonder what happened to them) confined the high pressure to a separate drive container tank. There are also the XCOR and (Livermore) Whitehead teams for combustion driven versions.AFAIK the notion of a separate pump drive process is viewed as very advanced, although looking back to Sangers work the system used a water cooling jacked around the chamber driving a steam turbine (which had about 40 yrs design history behind them by WWII).
Quote from: Skyrocket on 06/17/2015 06:47 amI have just found this article on SALVO with an artist impression:http://www.americaspace.com/?p=83211How is a microsatellite "more survivable" than a "multi-ton spacecraft"?
...Isn't the microsatellite the inherently more "vulnerable" of the two?
A big spacecraft has, in theory, more available delta-v that it can use to maneuver away from a threat.
A microsatellite can only wait for its doom.
Also, these microsats are only LEO dwellers while the biggies are in GEO or other higher orbits.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 06/18/2015 05:41 pmAt small sizes the compressed gas powered reciprocating pump from Flometrics (wonder what happened to them) confined the high pressure to a separate drive container tank. Well, that was easy:http://www.flometrics.com/
There's another book I could write on all of this. Perhaps. Another part of this is the stealthy nature of small aggregates. Various nations are having fun with these at the moment.Big sats aren't all going away either. If you need big optics, you'll have a big sat. But you might spread a platform over many smaller things.
Quote from: Skyrocket on 06/17/2015 06:47 amI have just found this article on SALVO with an artist impression:http://www.americaspace.com/?p=83211There is a sentence in this story that gives me trouble. It says that "[t]he future air launch of increasingly capable small spacecraft and Cubesats will be especially important as the USAF moves to smaller, more survivable satellites instead of more vulnerable multi-ton spacecraft". How is a microsatellite "more survivable" than a "multi-ton spacecraft"? Isn't the microsatellite the inherently more "vulnerable" of the two? A big spacecraft has, in theory, more available delta-v that it can use to maneuver away from a threat. A microsatellite can only wait for its doom. Also, these microsats are only LEO dwellers while the biggies are in GEO or other higher orbits. - Ed Kyle