Author Topic: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program  (Read 419587 times)

Offline a_langwich

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #200 on: 10/18/2013 11:58 pm »

IIRC the DC-X programme budget was about $63m in 1990s $. To reach M3 with no payload. Today I'm not sure that would cover the cost of 4 new RL-10s just to begin with.

If you're right this would be about a 2 1/2x bigger budget to get > 3x the speed and substantial payload (we've not even mentioned the 2nd stage, unless they want the worlds cheapest to run sounding rocket of course).
And let's not forget not all potential US threats are located at 28degs to the equator. Either they will take a serious payload hit by limiting the launch sites or this system has to be "field portable" in some way.

Adjusted for inflation, that would be 50% bigger budget for 3x the speed, plus a large payload, plus 24 hour turnaround 10 days in a row, plus a $5 million per orbital launch cost. 

And this analysis subtly understates how expensive that additional speed above Mach 3 is.  Maybe "50% bigger budget for 11x the kinetic energy" would be more representative.

Regarding latitude, there is still Kwajalein and Vandenberg.  Don't you think they have enough on their plate as it is?  :D

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #201 on: 10/19/2013 04:38 pm »

Adjusted for inflation, that would be 50% bigger budget for 3x the speed, plus a large payload, plus 24 hour turnaround 10 days in a row, plus a $5 million per orbital launch cost. 

And this analysis subtly understates how expensive that additional speed above Mach 3 is.  Maybe "50% bigger budget for 11x the kinetic energy" would be more representative.

Regarding latitude, there is still Kwajalein and Vandenberg.  Don't you think they have enough on their plate as it is?  :D
Yes it is a serious challenge.  IMHO Anyone looking to do this will have to either  have a)A very creative approach or b)Some major parts already available (from other projects) to hit the budget.  :(
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1062
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #202 on: 10/19/2013 04:52 pm »
Yes it is a serious challenge.  IMHO Anyone looking to do this will have to either  have a)A very creative approach or b)Some major parts already available (from other projects) to hit the budget.  :(
b) is why I see SpaceX as the only real possible contender.
I cant think of any a)s right now, but I would be happy to be surprised.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #203 on: 10/20/2013 05:25 am »
The contract is low enough that perhaps the implication is that there needs to be "skin in the game." Sure, you can't expect to do EVERYTHING for that price, but at the end of the day, you have basically a partial RLV which can compete for revenue for small launches more effectively than really anything else on the market.
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 a_langwich

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #204 on: 10/20/2013 07:05 am »
The contract is low enough that perhaps the implication is that there needs to be "skin in the game." Sure, you can't expect to do EVERYTHING for that price, but at the end of the day, you have basically a partial RLV which can compete for revenue for small launches more effectively than really anything else on the market.

True, but if you had the means and the cleverness to accomplish this at $5 million a flight, you would already have had a slam-dunk business case for funding to do it at > $15 million a flight, slow turnaround, less than Mach 10 staging, and possibly limited reuse.  Like SpaceX.  And, possibly like SpaceX, you would not be interested in the pitiful DARPA budget, because you would have a billion dollar backlog of customer orders.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #205 on: 10/20/2013 07:32 am »
The contract is low enough that perhaps the implication is that there needs to be "skin in the game." Sure, you can't expect to do EVERYTHING for that price, but at the end of the day, you have basically a partial RLV which can compete for revenue for small launches more effectively than really anything else on the market.

True, but if you had the means and the cleverness to accomplish this at $5 million a flight, you would already have had a slam-dunk business case for funding to do it at > $15 million a flight, slow turnaround, less than Mach 10 staging, and possibly limited reuse.  Like SpaceX.  And, possibly like SpaceX, you would not be interested in the pitiful DARPA budget, because you would have a billion dollar backlog of customer orders.
You're WAAAYYY over-simplifying this and how easy it is to build a business case based solely on an idea.

SpaceX did, in fact, get DARPA funding to help with Falcon 1. And having the gov't help pay for some of the development (when they need such a capability) is incredibly helpful to get your business off the ground enough that you can get customer orders. This is how governments can be useful to encourage business development. In the rocket business, there are natural barriers to entry that government funding in cases like this can help overcome.
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 a_langwich

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #206 on: 10/20/2013 09:58 am »
The contract is low enough that perhaps the implication is that there needs to be "skin in the game." Sure, you can't expect to do EVERYTHING for that price, but at the end of the day, you have basically a partial RLV which can compete for revenue for small launches more effectively than really anything else on the market.

True, but if you had the means and the cleverness to accomplish this at $5 million a flight, you would already have had a slam-dunk business case for funding to do it at > $15 million a flight, slow turnaround, less than Mach 10 staging, and possibly limited reuse.  Like SpaceX.  And, possibly like SpaceX, you would not be interested in the pitiful DARPA budget, because you would have a billion dollar backlog of customer orders.
You're WAAAYYY over-simplifying this and how easy it is to build a business case based solely on an idea.

SpaceX did, in fact, get DARPA funding to help with Falcon 1. And having the gov't help pay for some of the development (when they need such a capability) is incredibly helpful to get your business off the ground enough that you can get customer orders. This is how governments can be useful to encourage business development. In the rocket business, there are natural barriers to entry that government funding in cases like this can help overcome.

Maybe so.  Maybe a few companies out there fit your scenario:  strapped enough for funding that this program gets them over the hump.  At the same time, well-funded enough to put "skin in the game" and finish the project with their own money.  The intersection of the two is going to be vanishingly small.   Or (as in the SpaceX case you cited) they may have plenty of funding but happy to add someone else's money to do what they have already started, in which case DARPA is just greasing their path a little.  Maybe Blue Origin is such a company.  We'll see.

Did DARPA really do anything other than buy a couple of launches of Falcon 1?  They didn't really overcome any barriers to entry there.  The difference here is that DARPA is 1) asking for capabilities far beyond what the market is asking ie turnaround time, reusability, and staging speed, 2) at prices far less than what the market would offer, and 3) possibly offering not enough development money to make it happen.  You suggested 3 could be addressed by companies responding to market forces; I'm suggesting that 1 and 2 make that extremely unlikely--market forces are acting against several key goals of this project, not for it.  Unless the company takes DARPA's money, "fails" on 1 and 2, and then gives the market what it wants at the prices it will pay.

Ignoring turnaround time and reusability, as soon as a company proves out orbital capability for 2000 kg at prices anywhere near low multiples of $5 million a flight, any sane investor would want them to turn THAT crank, not at $5 million but at reasonable market prices, which would be determined by a detailed market analysis of elasticity of demand.  Maybe the secret here is that such a company still wouldn't have the DARPA-supplied upper stage?  But surely a company that could develop a first stage meeting these criteria could also arrange an upper stage, in order to gain that market?

Who knows?  Perhaps DARPA would be happy with a failed project that still managed to produce something like a Falcon 3 competitor at SpaceX prices or slightly below?  Much slower turnaround times, not necessarily much reusability for now, not staged at Mach 10 but still sufficient to meet the orbital payload requirements perhaps with an upper stage tightly designed for it.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #207 on: 10/21/2013 07:19 am »
Ignoring turnaround time and reusability, as soon as a company proves out orbital capability for 2000 kg at prices anywhere near low multiples of $5 million a flight, any sane investor would want them to turn THAT crank, not at $5 million but at reasonable market prices, which would be determined by a detailed market analysis of elasticity of demand.  Maybe the secret here is that such a company still wouldn't have the DARPA-supplied upper stage?  But surely a company that could develop a first stage meeting these criteria could also arrange an upper stage, in order to gain that market?

Who knows?  Perhaps DARPA would be happy with a failed project that still managed to produce something like a Falcon 3 competitor at SpaceX prices or slightly below?  Much slower turnaround times, not necessarily much reusability for now, not staged at Mach 10 but still sufficient to meet the orbital payload requirements perhaps with an upper stage tightly designed for it.
Without an upper stage you basically have a sounding rocket. Useful (that's a pretty substantial payload for a sounding rocket) but not for the goals of responsive space. IE increasing capacity for various space based military functions on demand over a remote theater of war.  :(

My instinct is that few in "Big Aerospace" have the motivation to deliver on this programme. Keep in mind though this is the development phase and would ultimately lead to multiple complete systems being fielded, probably with some kind of ongoing support contract like the way the F9/Atares development contracts lead to the CRS fulfillment contracts with NASA.

Consolidation in the US aerospace industry has really hurt the ability to see diverse primes deliver different approaches to this problem. Back in the day Convair, GD and Grumman would have been potential candidates for this. That said there are still some smaller players who are around for whom this is a major contract, worth putting in serious effort for.

Keep in mind that DARPA's goals are never easy. But you're right that even a "near miss" (obviously depending on how near) would be a win for them.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #208 on: 10/21/2013 02:46 pm »
It's kind of crazy to realize this thread is at 14 pages already, and the Proposer's Day hasn't happened yet.

On that note...

I found out that the Proposer's Day has been rescheduled to November 6th. There's actually a small chance that I'll be able to attend now, since I was planning on meeting with someone out in the DC area on the 7th or 8th anyway, so flying out a day early doesn't end up costing me much extra. When I checked the meeting was booked-out, but I have a request in to see if I can attend.

Might be good to actually get some questions answered instead of just speculating wildly off of month-old data.

Anybody want to suggest some questions to ask in case I can attend?

~Jon

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1062
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #209 on: 10/21/2013 03:32 pm »
The contract is low enough that perhaps the implication is that there needs to be "skin in the game." Sure, you can't expect to do EVERYTHING for that price, but at the end of the day, you have basically a partial RLV which can compete for revenue for small launches more effectively than really anything else on the market.
If a concept is selected by DARPA, it could be seen as a feasibility statement by investors and they could feel motivated to invest. Government funding is often a trigger for private investment.

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 621
  • Likes Given: 2137
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #210 on: 10/21/2013 11:02 pm »
Anybody want to suggest some questions to ask in case I can attend?

1. May the "first stage" actually be two stages, both reusable? In other words is there a requirement that the first stage remain in one piece? Example: WhiteKnightOne/Two and SpaceShipOne/Two.

2. Is there a requirement that the first stage return to the launch site or is it OK for the first stage to land elsewhere and either refuel and fly itself home or be shipped home? (Shipment home would probably need to be by air or a high-speed boat to get home within the allotted 1 day.)

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #211 on: 10/22/2013 06:15 am »
I found out that the Proposer's Day has been rescheduled to November 6th. There's actually a small chance that I'll be able to attend now, since I was planning on meeting with someone out in the DC area on the 7th or 8th anyway, so flying out a day early doesn't end up costing me much extra. When I checked the meeting was booked-out, but I have a request in to see if I can attend.
I have what might be an odd question.

Are there any approaches that are specifically ruled out?

You mentioned that someone who suggested setting up 2 launch sites and yo-yoing between them, with the forward path carrying the payload and the reverse self ferrying the vehicle back for the next launch, would probably be ruled "too smart." Inelegant certainly, OTOH the engineering is well understood and all it would take would be 2 bases roughly the orbital height apart, if you're only looking at 1st stage recovery.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #212 on: 10/25/2013 06:47 am »
Does the Mach 10 speed have to be horizontal, or can it be vertical (i.e. a pop-up stage)?
« Last Edit: 10/25/2013 06:47 am by simonbp »

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #213 on: 10/25/2013 07:04 am »
Does the Mach 10 speed have to be horizontal, or can it be vertical (i.e. a pop-up stage)?

How are you going to do a Mach 10 air breathing popup stage?

Ballisticly it's like 3 g acceleration for 2 minutes straight up, but you'd run out of air long before you got to Mach 10 anyway.

If you could do about 7 g acceleration for 50 seconds you might not run out of air and could coast to ~120 km.

Pretty sporty either way.


Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 621
  • Likes Given: 2137
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #214 on: 10/25/2013 12:27 pm »
Why do you think there's an airbreathing requirement?

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1062
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #215 on: 10/25/2013 06:04 pm »
I cant remember a requirement for this to be air breathing.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #216 on: 10/25/2013 10:25 pm »
My mistake.

Still unlikely you're doing Mach 10 straight up.


Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #217 on: 10/25/2013 11:15 pm »
It's looking more likely that I'll be able to make it to the Proposer's Day. I'll let you guys know once I've finalized plans if I'll be able to make it or not.

Offline a_langwich

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #218 on: 10/26/2013 06:03 am »
My mistake.

Still unlikely you're doing Mach 10 straight up.


I think the question was generally if the Mach 10 requirement could be met on a general lofted rocket launch trajectory--outside the atmosphere, where Mach 10 is easier--or if there was some presumption of Mach 10 being reached on a flatter trajectory, as in airbreathing SSTOs and the hypersonic vehicles DARPA has pursued.

More generally, I'd be interested in what parameters are provided for the second stage.  Wet and dry weights and deltaV?  Notional minimum dimensions?   If someone went the X-33/X-34 route mentioned earlier, would they need to provide a design for an aerodynamic fairing (if external carry is planned) and hold/release system (for Mach 10 staging)? 

Or do they plan to say, we'll put you in touch with ___, the builder of the actual upper stage hardware, who can give you all the information you need.  And who will be supplying you with one for your orbital test flight.  :)

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1062
Re: DARPA Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS-1) Program
« Reply #219 on: 10/29/2013 06:44 pm »
It's looking more likely that I'll be able to make it to the Proposer's Day. I'll let you guys know once I've finalized plans if I'll be able to make it or not.
Cool! Looking forward to hearing from you!

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1