Author Topic: NASA loans RocketPlane Ltd RS-88 Engine (Read 7074 times)

braddock · « **on:** 01/24/2006 10:32 pm »

"NASA's Johnson Space Center, Houston, and the company signed a Space Act Agreement for use of an RS-88 engine in tests of its Rocketplane XP vehicle for three years. The company will provide NASA with design, test and operational information from the development.

The Rocketplane XP Vehicle is a four-seat fighter-sized vehicle fitted with a delta wing and a V-tail which provide good flight characteristics both sub-sonically and supersonically. The cabin environment is designed to maintain a comfortable temperature and pressure for the occupants while providing an excellent view of the Earth from space."

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/jan/HQ_06034_Rocketplane_partners.html

http://www.rocketplane.com/

Martin FL · « **Reply #1 on:** 01/25/2006 12:52 am »

Interesting. I can't say I'm all that aware of this Rocketplane XP.

braddock · « **Reply #2 on:** 01/25/2006 12:11 pm »

They seem to be just spinning up, although very quickly. Their web site says they only got their own offices in early 2004 ("three employees and a dialup web connection"), and I found one article from last June saying they were still in the "paper design stages", however their funding must have been turned on, because now they claim 30 engineers, and I see at least one windtunnel mock-up on the web site.

Their original schtick was that they were going to modify a learjet with a rocket engine for 300,000 feet suborbital flight. It seems like they may have backed off from that concept a bit in later reports.

Does anyone know much about these RS-88 engines? Info seems scarce. Some places report it is LOX/Kerosene, some report LOX/alcohol, looks like it may only have had 55 seconds of accumulated test run time, and thrust figures vary. They seem to have been part of the Orbital Space Plane escape system.

http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/pad_abort_tests.html?18122003
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2004/q1/nr_040129m.html

"The RS-88 is a 50,000-pound thrust class rocket engine designed by Boeing for use on Lockheed-Martin's Pad Abort Demonstration (PAD) vehicle to be launched in late 2005. PAD is a program sponsored by NASA and will be powered by 4 RS-88 rocket engines."

AndyMc · « **Reply #3 on:** 01/25/2006 12:23 pm »

Rocketplane aims for suborbital launch in July

"Rocketplane will conduct a 25-flight atmosphere test programme with its four-seater XP suborbital spaceplane from January 2007 followed by a July maiden launch."

Read-on -

http://flightinternational.com/Articles/2006/01/25/Navigation/200/204280/Rocketplane+aims+for+suborbital+launch+in+July.html

braddock · « **Reply #4 on:** 01/25/2006 04:16 pm »

Spacester posted a good article link in the other section from RocketsAway on RocketPlane that has more detail than I've seen elsewhere.

http://www.rocketsaway.net/rockets_away_ezine_012006_rocketplane.htm

Hotol · « **Reply #5 on:** 01/26/2006 09:15 am »

I thought wings in space had the distain of most people following spaceflight. Why is it acceptable with this design?

braddock · « **Reply #6 on:** 01/26/2006 11:44 am »

RocketPlane, like SpaceShipOne, is a suborbital design. Getting to 300k feet on a suborbital trajectory takes something like only 1/40th of the energy to get to orbit, so the extra weight of the wings isn't that big a deal, and you need a mechanism for controlled descent. I also believe (can someone correct me if I'm wrong?) that flying up to 40 or 50k feet is more efficient with wings than with a vertical lift-off rocket, so the wings probably make up for the extra ballistic mass in the pre-ballistic flight.

Then, of course, they want to operate routinely out of conventional airports (with already unhappy neighbors who justifiably complain about a 747 taking off, let along the noise from a rocket launch). And, frankly, I'd feel more confident as a space tourist stepping into a learjet with a rocket strapped to it's back (=RocketPlane), than some ex-dot-com'ers rocket sitting on a pad with LOX steaming off and everything.

Now, the TGV Rockets guys want to do suborbital vertical rockets, so I guess you can argue for either way.

Rocket Nut · « **Reply #7 on:** 01/26/2006 12:13 pm »

Quote

braddock - 26/1/2006 7:44 AM

Then, of course, they want to operate routinely out of conventional airports (with already unhappy neighbors who justifiably complain about a 747 taking off, let along the noise from a rocket launch). And, frankly, I'd feel more confident as a space tourist stepping into a learjet with a rocket strapped to it's back (=RocketPlane), than some ex-dot-com'ers rocket sitting on a pad with LOX steaming off and everything.

Now, the TGV Rockets guys want to do suborbital vertical rockets, so I guess you can argue for either way.

Sounds reasonable, but I will be surprised to see it happen...especially as a viable commercial enterprise.

Regards,

Larry

STS Tony · « **Reply #8 on:** 01/26/2006 02:19 pm »

Looks like a great idea to me.

Rocket Nut · « **Reply #9 on:** 01/26/2006 02:23 pm »

Quote

STS Tony - 26/1/2006 10:19 AM

Looks like a great idea to me.

I love the concept. I just don't see it as a viable commercial enterprise at this time. But we have to start somewhere. This may be the first real step toward commercial space travel.

Cheers,

Larry

Dobbins · « **Reply #10 on:** 01/26/2006 03:16 pm »

The first time I saw the concept of strapping a rocket to a Learjet to turn it into a spaceplane my reaction was "Did Wile E. Coyote come up with this thing to catch the Roadrunner?". I'm still not impressed, but what the heck, I've been wrong before. Good Luck to them.

braddock · « **Reply #11 on:** 01/26/2006 03:49 pm »

Quote

Dobbins - 26/1/2006 11:16 AM
The first time I saw the concept of strapping a rocket to a Learjet to turn it into a spaceplane my reaction was "Did Wile E. Coyote come up with this thing to catch the Roadrunner?". I'm still not impressed, but what the heck, I've been wrong before. Good Luck to them.

Yeah, I think RocketPlane is a real wait-and-see prospect. The fact that the RS-88 has seemingly only accrued 55 seconds of burn time in its history (and that over the course of over a dozen short tests, none lasting more than 6 seconds, which was the design burn time), and RocketPlane needs a 90 second burn with people sitting on the other side of the bulkhead...doesn't inspire me with confidence.

Apparently it didn't even inspire RocketDyne with confidence in their own engine. Last year RocketPlane tried to negotiate directly with RocketDyne for an RS-88, and RocketDyne insisted that they would have to pay $100 million for an insurance policy. No deal. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3217961/