Jeff Foust – @jeff_foustMelroy: decided to do a full and open competition for Phase 2 of XS-1 because we’re hoping to bring in some fresh ideas.https://mobile.twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/724614984865558528
Tousley said DARPA would contribute “a healthy fraction” to the development of the spaceplane. XS-1 has been the agency’s top-funded space program the last two years. The White House asked for $50 million for the program in its budget request for fiscal year 2017.
“One of the critical parameters that’s coming out of the Phase 2 solicitation for XS-1 is the requirement that before we launch this asset for the first time, the vendors are going to prove to DARPA through a ground test of their propulsion system 10 times in 10 days,” he said. “We’re gojng to burn a lot of risk down”
Sponable acknowledged that the funding DARPA has set aside for XS-1 won’t be enough to fully fund the winning vehicle’s development and flight tests. “It’s enough to pick someone and go. It’s probably not enough to fully fund what we have envisioned,” he said.DARPA will make the XS-1 award using its Other Transaction Authority, which is more flexible than a traditional contract. “That implies cost share,” he said, with the winning company expected to contribute its own money to some degree to fully fund the vehicle’s development.
“We feel that a lot of these technologies, particularly the reusable ones, have come a long ways since we started the program a couple of years ago,” said Pamela Melroy, deputy director of DARPA’s Tactical Technology Office, during an April 25 presentation to the National Academies’ Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board. “So we’re throwing this to a full and open competition for phase two in the hope that we bring in some fresh ideas.”Any new entrant, though, will be at a disadvantage to the three original companies, whose studies are roughly equivalent to a preliminary design review. “We are looking for a level of detail in the response that will make it very difficult for some people to come in off the fly and respond,” Sponable said.
Work on XS-1 has helped Masten’s workforce to more than double in the last year, but the company still has fewer than 40 employees, company founder Dave Masten said in a Space Access ’16 presentation. The company and its team of contractors were wrapping up work on their phase one contract and preparing for phase two. The company is also working to raise a $50 million financing round to support that effort, and plans to raise even more should it win the competition.The company’s XS-1 design, like previous vehicles it has developed, takes off and lands vertically, although it has stubby wings to allow it to fly back to its launch site to make that vertical landing. “We don’t know what wheels, landing gear or runways are,” he quipped.
By contrast, XS-1 will use technologies further along in their development: at a technology readiness level of at least five, which on the one-to-nine TRL scale means at least some components of key technologies have been validated. Sponable said that earlier efforts often used technologies with TRLs of three or less.But if DARPA fails with XS-1, it might not get another chance to work on an RLV program for years to come, and it’s unlikely anyone else in the federal government would, either. NASA is working on the heavy-lift, but expendable, Space Launch System. The Air Force is now focused on developing a new engine to replace the Atlas 5’s RD-180. Neither has any clear interest in, or funding for, RLVs.
Yay, we've done an article on this now https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/07/darpa-pushing-experimental-spaceplane-xs-1/By Chris Gebhardt, with thanks to Derrick Stamos for being at the event to video Mr. Sponable's comments and grab slides, etc.
The XS-1 program seems to have been completely overtaken by reality. Go 10 years back and I can see the usefulness of seeding a small, cheap and reusable rocket/spaceplane. But with the virtual explosion in small rocket companies, it just seem unnecessary. And with regards to lowering the cost of bigger DOD payloads, SpaceX is actually doing that as we speak. Blue Origin is on their way too. Both testing reusable systems. And I have a hard time seeing how XS-1 would have helped in this regard anyway.Lastly, what is the justification for the 10 flights within 10 days? Seems like an arbitrary choice. What happens after those 10 days. Stand down for a year or some other unspecified time?? DARPA should spend the their money on something better.
Quote from: Star One on 04/25/2016 07:51 pmJeff Foust – @jeff_foustMelroy: decided to do a full and open competition for Phase 2 of XS-1 because we’re hoping to bring in some fresh ideas.https://mobile.twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/724614984865558528Which is kind of interesting in some regards. It suggests to me that either they're not confident any of the existing teams are capable of meeting all their goals, or that they've been lobbied by some outsiders who think they could be competitive (or something else entirely). Not sure which of the three.~Jon
Really nice article Chris - the metallic TPS - do you or anyone know if the idea is to use the TPS originally proposed for the X-33 and what TRL does DARPA expect from the TPS?
10 flights in 10 days seem like someone has been reading from Elon's playbook.
I see they are open to both horizontal or vertical landing. I still feel that horizontal landing is less stressful on the vehicle and requiring less refurbishment (hence my winged Flyback Falcon a few years back)
I will still be happy if SpaceX proves me wrong. Looks like more exciting times ahead for rocketry!
Quote from: Rocket Science on 07/13/2016 08:02 pm10 flights in 10 days seem like someone has been reading from Elon's playbook. You have that backward. Sponable was Project Manager for the DC-X project that demonstrated 2 flights in 26 hours for a M3 capable LH2 fueled vehicle 25 years ago.QuoteI see they are open to both horizontal or vertical landing. I still feel that horizontal landing is less stressful on the vehicle and requiring less refurbishment (hence my winged Flyback Falcon a few years back) Depends. A VTHL design gives you the worst of both worlds for stresses, needing a shape structure that's strong in 2 axes, one of which has to be phenomenally light to allow takeoff at all. QuoteI will still be happy if SpaceX proves me wrong. Looks like more exciting times ahead for rocketry! We're still waiting for the first 2nd launch of an F9 first stage. The real question is how much will it lower the price of that launch by?
Great NSF article. However I'm still scratching my head over this DARPA effort.Yes, reusable launch systems are good things to pursue, but it really does seem like they are ignoring current events. For instance, wouldn't it make sense to focus on current technologies to see how far they can go?I guess what bothers me is that DARPA is being overly specific about what they want, such as the 10 launches in 10 days, and to me fake requirements breed capabilities that don't match reality - which means the systems could end up being unsustainable (i.e. why not 5 in 10 days, or??). Not unlike the Shuttle, which was supposedly designed for high reusability, yet there wasn't a need for it's full capabilities.It just seems like DARPA has skipped too far ahead of this issue, and is missing out on surveying WHAT IS POSSIBLE using the technologies that have far less risk. Especially since they point out that this effort has a TRL of 5, and the X-33 program, which was very challenging, had a TRL of 3. Plus they don't have much money, which further muddies things. I think their risk/reward ratio is not right.As an example, what if instead of focusing on an SSTO that has a low payload capability, that they focused on using existing reusable stage technology, and added a reusable upper stage? Which is essentially what Elon Musk had originally hoped he could do with the Falcon family, but I think they found such a capability was a lower priority than the various other efforts they were working.Any who, still watching this with a curious eye...
Great NSF article. However I'm still scratching my head over this DARPA effort.*snipI guess what bothers me is that DARPA is being overly specific about what they want, such as the 10 launches in 10 days, and to me fake requirements breed capabilities that don't match reality*snip