My first question is this. Why is it "XS-1"? Does that imply an "XS-2", and so on?Then I'm wondering who DARPA is aiming this toward. Lockheed Martin flew that "Revolver" test stage a few years ago, for example.
During her AIAA Presentaion, Pam Melroy discussed DARPA's new Experimental Spaceplane (XS-1). She explained during the Q&A that it doesn't have to be a plane. It must be a reusable first stage. It must be able to get to Mach 10. Here are the slides where she dicusssed the XS-1. Here is her presentation (at 19m40s and 1h15m):http://www.livestream.com/aiaa/video?clipId=pla_7392bc56-dba0-4250-a88f-0188c2fb049c&utm_source=lslibrary&utm_medium=ui-thumb
Quote from: yg1968 on 09/12/2013 08:19 pmDuring her AIAA Presentaion, Pam Melroy discussed DARPA's new Experimental Spaceplane (XS-1). She explained during the Q&A that it doesn't have to be a plane. It must be a reusable first stage. It must be able to get to Mach 10. Here are the slides where she dicusssed the XS-1. Here is her presentation (at 19m40s and 1h15m):http://www.livestream.com/aiaa/video?clipId=pla_7392bc56-dba0-4250-a88f-0188c2fb049c&utm_source=lslibrary&utm_medium=ui-thumbI'm worried about that second slide. Low-cost access to space and hypersonics research are not necessarily strongly related. If anything kills this program, my guess is it'll be the insistence on a Mach 10 staging point. Though they may still get a good proposal that isn't a hypersonic airplane pretending to be a first stage that could save the day, but I've never been very convinced that hypersonics are the way to go to get cheap access to space.~Jon
May be they mentioned that it has to reach Mach 10 by itself (i.e. no US nor payload)? Which I think is sort of normal for expendable version.
My first question is this. Why is it "XS-1"? Does that imply an "XS-2", and so on?Then I'm wondering who DARPA is aiming this toward. Lockheed Martin flew that "Revolver" test stage a few years ago, for example, then won Reusable Booster System funding, but RBS was cancelled in 2012. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 09/12/2013 05:01 pmMy first question is this. Why is it "XS-1"? Does that imply an "XS-2", and so on?Then I'm wondering who DARPA is aiming this toward. Lockheed Martin flew that "Revolver" test stage a few years ago, for example, then won Reusable Booster System funding, but RBS was cancelled in 2012. - Ed KyleOn the same panel, someone from the Air Force said that they were not interested in a RBS type system because it was too far off into the future.
If only there was some system for rationally approaching technology development. Alas, without all these government agencies and their panels of experts, there would be no progress.
Quote from: QuantumG on 09/13/2013 01:13 amIf only there was some system for rationally approaching technology development. Alas, without all these government agencies and their panels of experts, there would be no progress. ...and yet, a lot of tech progress has occurred. Or has occurred in effectively-governmental monopolistic institutions like Bell Labs.The primary ingredient is competency.
The history of such programs at DARPA has not been good, at least in the field of aerospace.RASCAL comes to mind.I do wish them luck on this one, though.
Quote from: baldusi on 09/12/2013 09:47 pmMay be they mentioned that it has to reach Mach 10 by itself (i.e. no US nor payload)? Which I think is sort of normal for expendable version.Yes. Mach 10 for the first stage or the plane.