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?
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.
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.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 10/20/2013 05:25 amThe 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.
Quote from: a_langwich on 10/20/2013 07:05 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 10/20/2013 05:25 amThe 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.
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.
Anybody want to suggest some questions to ask in case I can attend?
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.
Does the Mach 10 speed have to be horizontal, or can it be vertical (i.e. a pop-up stage)?
My mistake.Still unlikely you're doing Mach 10 straight up.
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.