"Secret" LockMart launch vehicle prototype

[Lampyridae]

OV-106 - 25/4/2008  11:57 AM

I believe when people were saying hybrid, the meant mixed reusuable/expenable stages.

Given the relative size of the operational vehicel, assuming the 1/5 scale is accurate, could mean it's part of a three stage vehicle.  The first being something that carries it to altitude, releases it and then this stage returns.

I was actually referring to Ed's link which was of a hybrid motor test. Hybrid is an annoying term; it's been applied to all sorts of things. :laugh:

I agree, it probably is a three-stage vehicle now that you bring it up. Given that they fired it straight up from a rail plus the shape makes me think it's a true flyback first stage as opposed to a souped-up air-launch system.

[meiza]

Strange how the wings are so big. Would you really need such in a VTHL booster?
Maybe if you have to abort and land with some propellants?

[kevin-rf]

meiza - 25/4/2008  7:08 AM

Strange how the wings are so big. Would you really need such in a VTHL booster?
Maybe if you have to abort and land with some propellants?

Maybe it needs cross range to land at preselected landing strips down range of the launch site...

[Lampyridae]

kevin-rf - 25/4/2008  10:25 PM

meiza - 25/4/2008  7:08 AM

Strange how the wings are so big. Would you really need such in a VTHL booster?
Maybe if you have to abort and land with some propellants?

Maybe it needs cross range to land at preselected landing strips down range of the launch site...

My guess is to support the return of the payload but with a propellant dump in the case of an abort. Also, large wings enable more short-runway access (as hinted at by the canards). With regard to the canards, I'm guessing there's more involvement of the control surfaces during re-entry to maintain attitude.

For comparison, the Baikal booster uses a relative small scissor-wing for glide and landing. (The Baikal booster is a proposed drop-in replacement for the Angara CCB).

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/angara.html

I guess the ultimate iteration of this vehicle (LockMart's) would be a trimese spacecraft that could reach orbit; a fully reusable launch system, if and when the economics ever got round to supporting that.

[hyper_snyper]

Apparently the thing is called 'Revolver'...

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2008/06/lockheed-martins-flyback-first.html

[neilh]

Apparently the thing is called 'Revolver'...

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2008/06/lockheed-martins-flyback-first.html

Sorry to resuscitate a 2-year-old thread, but it looks like Lockheed Martin has recently trademarked 'Revolver':

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2010/03/lockheed-trademarks-revolver-f.html

From the USPTO search:

Word Mark    REVOLVER
Goods and Services   IC 012. US 019 021 023 031 035 044. G & S: Space vehicles, namely, rockets. FIRST USE: 20041114. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20051105
Standard Characters Claimed   
Mark Drawing Code   (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number   77798846
Filing Date   August 6, 2009
Current Filing Basis   1A
Original Filing Basis   1A
Published for Opposition    December 29, 2009
Owner   (APPLICANT) Lockheed Martin Corporation CORPORATION MARYLAND 6801 Rockledge Dr. Bethesda MARYLAND 208171836
Attorney of Record   Lisa K. Levine
Type of Mark   TRADEMARK
Register   PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator   LIVE

[neilh]

Some googling turned up a few relevant Lockheed Martin patents, with some rather interesting figures:

* 2002 (2003 issue), Reusable flyback rocket booster and method for recovering same: http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=2DsNAAAAEBAJ

* 2001 (2002 issue), Reusable booster for the first stage of a launcher: http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=vuIJAAAAEBAJ

* 2000 (2002 issue), Fly back booster: http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=HMsJAAAAEBAJ

* 2003 (2006 issue), Space transportation system: http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=bCB6AAAAEBAJ

*

[mlorrey]

Some googling turned up a few relevant Lockheed Martin patents, with some rather interesting figures:

* 2002 (2003 issue), Reusable flyback rocket booster and method for recovering same: http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=2DsNAAAAEBAJ

* 2001 (2002 issue), Reusable booster for the first stage of a launcher: http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=vuIJAAAAEBAJ

* 2000 (2002 issue), Fly back booster: http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=HMsJAAAAEBAJ

* 2003 (2006 issue), Space transportation system: http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=bCB6AAAAEBAJ

*

That second one looks like a Baikal clone... thats a breakable patent.

It will be interesting to see the economics of these concepts...

[Antares]

Hmmm, good bump and good research.  One has to wonder if this has anything to do with all of the kerolox talk in the President's budget.

[Namechange User]

This predates Obama's "plan" and even the Augustine Commission.  I think it is more likely this is just internal R&D work, possibly as a lead in for the possible Air Force RFI or RFP that is expected for a reusable launch vehicle

[kraisee]

According to my information, this is not an SLV.   More likely an ASat.

Ross.

[Antares]

Well, someone is pushing a kerolox engine with no known vehicle that wants it.  If it's meant for the NASA HLV, then someone should say so.

[Namechange User]

According to my information, this is not an SLV.   More likely an ASat.

Ross.

There are better ways to take out a sat that aren't as expensive and don't create a debris problem.

[Namechange User]

Well, someone is pushing a kerolox engine with no known vehicle that wants it.  If it's meant for the NASA HLV, then someone should say so.

LOL true, but of course the problem is no one knows why the kerolox engine is being pushed.....

[Antares]

To give MSFC something to do.  To redevelop the kerolox expertise that has been decimated.

Problem is, those whys solve the people side, but the technical requirements only start flowing at about Level 3 or 2 so far.  Without clear direction, it could be an unusable product or a perennial design churn between factions around the government.

[Namechange User]

But the reality is this has little to do with NASA directly.  No one, at least here as far as I know, knows for sure what the propellants for this first stage are and LockMart would not "need" NASA to "give them" kerolox technology 10 years from now anyway if they are really serious about this.

[neilh]

Well, someone is pushing a kerolox engine with no known vehicle that wants it.  If it's meant for the NASA HLV, then someone should say so.

Interesting note from Doug Cooke's talk at the Goddard Symposium the other day:
http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=19195

/-- Doug Cooke, ESMD: hoping to find multiple users in industry for hydrocarbon engine to be developed in new plan.

[Namechange User]

Well, someone is pushing a kerolox engine with no known vehicle that wants it.  If it's meant for the NASA HLV, then someone should say so.

Interesting note from Doug Cooke's talk at the Goddard Symposium the other day:
http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=19195

/-- Doug Cooke, ESMD: hoping to find multiple users in industry for hydrocarbon engine to be developed in new plan.

Well yeah, they have to justify it because it came out of left field. 

[jabe]

I think nasawatch put a picture of it here..seems it was hiding behind a McD's

jb

[simonbp]

I think nasawatch put a picture of it here..seems it was hiding behind a McD's

That's the Titan I at NASA Ames. Hardly Top Secret.