"Secret" LockMart launch vehicle prototype

[Patchouli]

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.

I doubt the Asat as it would be too expensive and kinetic kill vehicles are generally frowned up on for good reason.

Instead I say it's more for popup and or once around Earth observation.
One limitation for conventional spy satellites is once you put something up there everyone will soon know about it and it's orbit is very predictable.
Often the target will simply pull a tarp over something they don't want seen before the satellite passes overhead.

Something that can be launched quickly and return after one or two orbits could catch a country like Iran or North Korea off guard before they can hide any activity that would be in violation of treaties.

[GClark]

FWIW, my (exceedingly) uneducated guess is that someone(s?) gave LM an advanced peek at yesterdays' AF pre-solicitation for flyback boosters.

[douglas100]

Nice picture of a wind tunnel model of a flyback booster here:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a1553afc7-cc1e-4b5e-9a6c-ced39704d348&plc

[clongton]

Nice picture of a wind tunnel model of a flyback booster here:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a1553afc7-cc1e-4b5e-9a6c-ced39704d348&plc

For all the hype, I just can't justify exchanging the mass of those wings for payload from the core or upper stage. Every kilo of extra mass on the booster reduces the payload mass by the same amount. Is it worth it? IMO, no. Why? Because the object of the launch is to insert payload into orbit, not fly the booster back. The priorities are bass ackwards.

[Robotbeat]

Nice picture of a wind tunnel model of a flyback booster here:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a1553afc7-cc1e-4b5e-9a6c-ced39704d348&plc

For all the hype, I just can't justify exchanging the mass of those wings for payload from the core or upper stage. Every kilo of extra mass on the booster reduces the payload mass by the same amount.

The wings are on the booster, not the upper stage, so the penalty isn't nearly 1:1. If you read the article, it says the upper stage is to be expendable.

Is it worth it? IMO, no. Why? Because the object of the launch is to insert payload into orbit, not fly the booster back. The priorities are bass ackwards.

With a very high launch-rate, of course it makes more sense to reuse the spacecraft if it is possible and cheaper per-kg than building and launching a new launch vehicle every time. (This is a somewhat tautological statement...)

[douglas100]

Why? Because the object of the launch is to insert payload into orbit, not fly the booster back. The priorities are bass ackwards.

Of course the point of the launch is to place the payload in orbit. The point of the wings is to attempt to reduce the cost of the launch. Whether this will lead to cheaper launches in the future is yet to be proven.

[edkyle99]

Why? Because the object of the launch is to insert payload into orbit, not fly the booster back. The priorities are bass ackwards.

Of course the point of the launch is to place the payload in orbit. The point of the wings is to attempt to reduce the cost of the launch. Whether this will lead to cheaper launches in the future is yet to be proven.

The key to this deal really isn't flying the booster back - getting the tanks and structures back - it is engines.  It is all about propulsion.  No reusable pays unless the engines can turn around almost immediately.  (It costs as much or more to turn reusable SSMEs around as it costs to buy and fly one-time use expendable engines).  To my knowledge, no such LOX/kerosene engines exist.  Someone, somewhere, is surely working on that part of the equation.  But will low-cost reusable engines be part of the demonstration? 

The "rocket-back" approach, BTW, implies lower staging velocities than a "jet-engine-back" method.  That means that the upper stage will have to do more work than if an expendable booster is used, costing more.

 - Ed Kyle

[Robotbeat]

Why? Because the object of the launch is to insert payload into orbit, not fly the booster back. The priorities are bass ackwards.

Of course the point of the launch is to place the payload in orbit. The point of the wings is to attempt to reduce the cost of the launch. Whether this will lead to cheaper launches in the future is yet to be proven.

The key to this deal really isn't flying the booster back - getting the tanks and structures back - it is engines.  It is all about propulsion.  No reusable pays unless the engines can turn around almost immediately.  (It costs as much or more to turn reusable SSMEs around as it costs to buy and fly one-time use expendable engines).  To my knowledge, no such LOX/kerosene engines exist.  Someone, somewhere, is surely working on that part of the equation.  But will low-cost reusable engines be part of the demonstration? 

The "rocket-back" approach, BTW, implies lower staging velocities than a "jet-engine-back" method.  That means that the upper stage will have to do more work than if an expendable booster is used, costing more.

 - Ed Kyle

I agree that staging velocity will likely be lower than for a fully expendable launch vehicle, but not because it isn't jet-powered.

[edkyle99]

Why? Because the object of the launch is to insert payload into orbit, not fly the booster back. The priorities are bass ackwards.

Of course the point of the launch is to place the payload in orbit. The point of the wings is to attempt to reduce the cost of the launch. Whether this will lead to cheaper launches in the future is yet to be proven.

The key to this deal really isn't flying the booster back - getting the tanks and structures back - it is engines.  It is all about propulsion.  No reusable pays unless the engines can turn around almost immediately.  (It costs as much or more to turn reusable SSMEs around as it costs to buy and fly one-time use expendable engines).  To my knowledge, no such LOX/kerosene engines exist.  Someone, somewhere, is surely working on that part of the equation.  But will low-cost reusable engines be part of the demonstration? 

The "rocket-back" approach, BTW, implies lower staging velocities than a "jet-engine-back" method.  That means that the upper stage will have to do more work than if an expendable booster is used, costing more.

 - Ed Kyle

I agree that staging velocity will likely be lower than for a fully expendable launch vehicle, but not because it isn't jet-powered.

The use of jet engines allows much, much longer fly-back range than rocket-back (unless this thing is launched from something like a land-bound Baikonur), which implies higher staging velocities.  The other staging velocity determinate is thermal protection system requirements. 

 - Ed Kyle

[clongton]

Like Ed is saying, getting the tankage back, whether by parachute or wings or by magic, isn't nearly as important as getting the engines back. The purpose of the wings is to fly the whole thing back, 95% of which will just get melted as scrap metal - the tankage, because they aren't worth trying to recycle. If you really want to reduce the launch cost *and* you want to focus on the launch vehicle (there are other, better ways to do this), then focus on the engines, not the tanks. Devise a way to disconnect the engines after the propellant is gone and get that "propulsion module" back. That will go a *LOT* further to reducing launch costs than flying back the whole booster.

Fly-back boosters are just not worth the effort or the money. It just makes the upper stage less capable because it has to stage earlier and burn longer, resulting, most likely, in *less* IMLEO.

[Downix]

Like Ed is saying, getting the tankage back, whether by parachute or wings or by magic, isn't nearly as important as getting the engines back. The purpose of the wings is to fly the whole thing back, 95% of which will just get melted as scrap metal - the tankage, because they aren't worth trying to recycle. If you really want to reduce the launch cost *and* you want to focus on the launch vehicle (there are other, better ways to do this), then focus on the engines, not the tanks. Devise a way to disconnect the engines after the propellant is gone and get that "propulsion module" back. That will go a *LOT* further to reducing launch costs than flying back the whole booster.

Fly-back boosters are just not worth the effort or the money. It just makes the upper stage less capable because it has to stage earlier and burn longer, resulting, most likely, in *less* IMLEO.

Reminds me of my "SSME-in-a-lifting-body-pod" idea discussed on another thread.  (rather than a boattail on the bottom of an Ares or Jupiter, put mounting points for 1-4 SSME-pods, each one can be ejected once orbit is reached and glide back down for recovery in the ocean)

[Robotbeat]

Clongton, they are trying to recover the entire flyback booster intact. I mean, yeah, if you're going to tear the whole thing apart each time, the tanks aren't worth much. But the cost of a launch vehicle is much more than the sum of its parts. If you can recover the entire booster intact and without considerable wear and tear, you don't have to take it apart, you just check it out like is done for airplanes, mate it to another upperstage/payload, fuel it up, and launch. That's where real cost savings could come from.

This was tried on the Shuttle, but by doing it on the booster stage, a lot of things become easier (much lower reentry velocity is a big one, besides not being as mass-sensitive as an upper stage).

[douglas100]

From Robobeat:

If you can recover the entire booster intact and without considerable wear and tear, you don't have to take it apart, you just check it out like is done for airplanes, mate it to another upperstage/payload, fuel it up, and launch. That's where real cost savings could come from.

Agree. the Aviation Week article talks about the Air Force aiming at a 48 hour turnround on the booster and using a low manpower launch crew. Of course it only makes economic sense if there is a high launch rate.

[kevin-rf]

Or a once arround vehicle that drops something on the way back around... an RICBM

[douglas100]

The article talked about eventually replacing Atlas and Delta sometime in the 2030's.

[Nathan]

Like Ed is saying, getting the tankage back, whether by parachute or wings or by magic, isn't nearly as important as getting the engines back. The purpose of the wings is to fly the whole thing back, 95% of which will just get melted as scrap metal - the tankage, because they aren't worth trying to recycle. If you really want to reduce the launch cost *and* you want to focus on the launch vehicle (there are other, better ways to do this), then focus on the engines, not the tanks. Devise a way to disconnect the engines after the propellant is gone and get that "propulsion module" back. That will go a *LOT* further to reducing launch costs than flying back the whole booster.

Fly-back boosters are just not worth the effort or the money. It just makes the upper stage less capable because it has to stage earlier and burn longer, resulting, most likely, in *less* IMLEO.

Why would 95% get melted down as scrap metal. The idea is to have a reusable system that can experience rapid turnaround. The flyback booster can be sized to suit lift target so the loss of performance isn't an apples to apples comparison. ie: RLV has additional performance measures that an expendable cannot achieve including reuse times.

[JosephB]

The article talked about eventually replacing Atlas and Delta sometime in the 2030's.

25 or so years would be a good run for those vehicles.
Maybe by then the money for an exploration architecture will be available (will there ever be?)

Perhaps this RBS will see an Ares V type core? With J-2X upper?
Or how bout a HL-42, J-2X upper, & LFBB? ISS should still be around by then, right? Oh, wait, we’ll still be using Soyuz to get there.

[Kim Keller]

Latest AWST article on RBS contained these nuggets:

-Two versions of RBS: a single reusable first stage and expendable cryogenic upper stage for medium-lift missions; two reusable boosters, cryogenic core stage and upper stage for heavy-lift and growth missions
-Reduce launch cost by >50%
-IOC in 2025; Replace EELVs in 2030
-“At lower flight rates, the RBS does very well”
-"At the Air Force’s nominal rate of eight launches a year, “"we get at least a 50% cost saving, and that’s before the cost growth now hitting us.”"
-Business case based on 100-flight booster life, engines replaced every 10 flights
-15 ft. pathfinder to fly in 2013 and demonstrate rocket-back manuevers
-50-60 ft. RBX subscale demonstrator to fly in 2016-17
-Both demonstrators to use existing engines
-Operational RBS to use new-development RP1 engine (Hydrocarbon Boost Program), possibly with NASA partnership
-Plan goes to Space Command for assessment sometime in the next two months

[cheesybagel]

No reusable pays unless the engines can turn around almost immediately.  (It costs as much or more to turn reusable SSMEs around as it costs to buy and fly one-time use expendable engines).  To my knowledge, no such LOX/kerosene engines exist.

I seem to remember the SSME was not as expensive per flight anymore ever since they changed the mean time between overhauls (where they need to disassemble the engine to check it out). What was it SSME Block II?

I think most of the costs were elsewhere after engine upgrades.

IIRC RD-170 was designed to be a reusable staged combustion Lox/Kerosene engine. The first Energia launch also had parachutes in the booster stages to recover them for inspection afterward.

Also consider how many times the Falcon 9 first stage has been fired in tests already. Even so called expendable engines have some amount of reusability in them, otherwise they would not survive the necessary bench testing prior to flight.

[Robotbeat]

Bump.... Any new info on this?

(I was asking for info on this thread, which is a little off-topic... http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21981.msg686994#msg686994 )