Author Topic: RV-X  (Read 6596 times)

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10747
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 7643
  • Likes Given: 5477
Re: RV-X
« Reply #20 on: 01/15/2018 12:16 AM »
I thought it was a lot worse than that... that most SSTO end up with negative payload fractions unless built with large quantities of unobtainium...

BUT if 66% is achievable(which I doubt), it might not be a bad idea to pursue this... NewSpace are teaching us that it's about cost, primarily, and a bigger rocket isn't necessarily more expensive in the long run
You have it backwards. That's a 66% (up to 71%) loss in payload over for a VTO SSTO Vs a VTO TSTO.

No I don't. I am saying a 66% loss is impressive and I doubt, based on nothing at all (IANARS), it's achievable. I would expect negative mass fractions or maybe a 98% loss or some such.

a 66% loss (in a fuel rich architecture) means that such a vehicle is worth pursueing.
« Last Edit: 01/15/2018 12:28 AM by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Online russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4755
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1218
  • Likes Given: 598
Re: RV-X
« Reply #21 on: 01/15/2018 04:16 AM »
there was a topic on this issue on this site, but it get deleted because of our ultra intelligent moderation team. i am sure they were testing this type of vehicle since 2009. there was even a twitter-account dedicated to it in japanese. nihonjin friends were translating it time to time. anyone remember?
You mean this thread of RV-X's predecessor called RVT:

The twitter handle for the RVT related engine tests seems to have gone dark circa 2015

There was an interesting rumor that Mr Inatani, who was heavily involved with RVT work, is an advisor for Canon Electronics Inc. in some capacity, and that they were somehow involved with the avionics for the next RVT vehicle despite the MHI lead...
Mr Inatani also seems to have connection to SS-520-4 launch failure and the upcoming SS-520-5 launch attempt of which Canon Electronics Inc. is a part of along with JAXA's ISAS.

Offline Always out of base

  • Member
  • Posts: 2
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: RV-X
« Reply #22 on: 08/17/2018 02:34 PM »
This is the latest status of RV-X and CALLISTO.
RV-X; Test flight until 2019 Mar at Noshiro Rocket Testing Center
CALLISTO; Test flight in 2020 at Guiana Space Centre

Offline Asteroza

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 655
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: RV-X
« Reply #23 on: 08/20/2018 12:40 AM »
This is the latest status of RV-X and CALLISTO.
RV-X; Test flight until 2019 Mar at Noshiro Rocket Testing Center
CALLISTO; Test flight in 2020 at Guiana Space Centre

This starts to explain some of the stuff about JAXA/Prof Ishitani being involved with Callisto.

It seems the current plan is to fly by the end of 2018 RV-X to 100m, and send results data to ESA to inform Callisto development, with JAXA getting Callisto data back.

Didn't think RV-X was that far along, but if the PDF images are any indication, the test vehicle assembly is pretty far along.

It's pretty telling that JAXA/ESA feel so compelled to demonstrate capabilities equivalent to Falcon 9 first stage. They are now in a race between chinese efforts and Blue Origin to get an operational reusable first stage. Though Callisto is more immediately usable as a booster, but RV-X is LOx/LH2 which makes it poorly suited for booster/first stage work.