XCOR and the Lynx rocket

[john smith 19]

ULA is shooting for ACES costing the same as a Single-Engine Centaur, which is pretty ambitious. That said, the rumors I've heard are the same--after realizing they could get aced out of Vulcan propulsion if they aren't careful, I've heard that AJR is taking the RL-10 competition a lot more seriously.

But that's just third-hand rumors. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out. Can RL-10 get the price competitive enough? Can XCOR deliver and find a way to solve heritage concerns? Is BE-3U going to be high enough performance for ACES?

I just wish for XCOR's sake that they had more in the pipeline than just the RL-10 replacement engine, because it's far from clear they'll win this, even if they make it work, and even if the cost is reasonable. One interesting question though would be if ULA will fund them far enough that they could possibly market their engine to others even if they don't win ACES? A Masten XS-1 with a LOX/LH2 "Mini-taur" expendable (or reusable) upper stage would be pretty sweet for instance.

Indeed.

Yes AJR have the RL10 track record but IIRC ACES is a much bigger stage than Centaur and delivering it at the same cost means the engine prices has to be very reasonable, not just not too absurdly expensive.

ULA will have to consider that ARJ may low ball their new version RL10 and then "find" the price drifts upwards. 

I'd bet many of the cost reductions could have been done decades ago. That they were not speaks volumes for their management view.

For XCOR or Blue ULA would be a critical customer, one they'd work hard to keep happy.

[strangequark]

ULA is shooting for ACES costing the same as a Single-Engine Centaur, which is pretty ambitious. That said, the rumors I've heard are the same--after realizing they could get aced out of Vulcan propulsion if they aren't careful, I've heard that AJR is taking the RL-10 competition a lot more seriously.

But that's just third-hand rumors. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out. Can RL-10 get the price competitive enough? Can XCOR deliver and find a way to solve heritage concerns? Is BE-3U going to be high enough performance for ACES?

I just wish for XCOR's sake that they had more in the pipeline than just the RL-10 replacement engine, because it's far from clear they'll win this, even if they make it work, and even if the cost is reasonable. One interesting question though would be if ULA will fund them far enough that they could possibly market their engine to others even if they don't win ACES? A Masten XS-1 with a LOX/LH2 "Mini-taur" expendable (or reusable) upper stage would be pretty sweet for instance.

I'd bet many of the cost reductions could have been done decades ago. That they were not speaks volumes for their management view.

Yes and no. Reducing marginal costs can require significant upfront capital, between equipment, IRAD, and Delta-Qual.

AJR's customers have, historically been reluctant to substantively alter a proven design and lose flight heritage, which locks them into increasingly deprecated hardware and methods, which means their vendors end up maintaining outdated capabilities just for you, which means money. This is only one aspect, but it's not a small one. So, if your customer is willing to pay the prices, and doesn't want you to significantly change things, why are you going to fight them on it?

The culture in launch has only recently been changing from the mantra of Heritage Uber Alles. The old vendors are starting to shift accordingly, though some admittedly faster than others. From what I've seen, which is admittedly only through one window into a many-roomed house, AJR is very quickly and aggressively making that shift.

[ChrisWilson68]

AJR's customers have, historically been reluctant to substantively alter a proven design and lose flight heritage, which locks them into increasingly deprecated hardware and methods, which means their vendors end up maintaining outdated capabilities just for you, which means money. This is only one aspect, but it's not a small one. So, if your customer is willing to pay the prices, and doesn't want you to significantly change things, why are you going to fight them on it?

The culture in launch has only recently been changing from the mantra of Heritage Uber Alles. The old vendors are starting to shift accordingly, though some admittedly faster than others. From what I've seen, which is admittedly only through one window into a many-roomed house, AJR is very quickly and aggressively making that shift.

That's encouraging to hear.  That is, encouraging for AJR -- discouraging for the company that is the subject of this thread.

Of course, actions speak louder that words and we'll have to wait and see if AJR can actually deliver a reliable, substantially cheaper, RL-10 replacement.  Sometimes changing to new ways of doing things is harder and more costly than people project.

[GWH]

Or they could just shift costs to big juicy non competitive contracts (SLS) while undercutting competition in the open market.

[ChrisWilson68]

Or they could just shift costs to big juicy non competitive contracts (SLS) while undercutting competition in the open market.

Since the SLS contracts are cost-plus, that would be fraud.  There are extensive mechanisms in place to detect such fraud, and the penalties if they are caught would be severe.

So, it seems unlikely to me.

Of course, they could take profits from their SLS contracts and use that to subsidize development of the new engine.  There's nothing wrong with that.  They'd be spending their own money, and when they do that it doesn't really matter where it came from.  That's how things always work in a free market.

If they spend their own money to sell the new engine below their marginal production costs to drive competition out of the market, however, that's illegal.  It's a violation of anti-trust laws.

[Space Ghost 1962]

I'd bet many of the cost reductions could have been done decades ago. That they were not speaks volumes for their management view.

Yes and no. Reducing marginal costs can require significant upfront capital, between equipment, IRAD, and Delta-Qual.

So true. Not to mention the commitment by the firm to support the necessary follow on with the added expenses like testing, where you aren't guaranteed a return on that expense, but you still have to do it to retain proficiency in hydrolox, irrespective of if it is flown (or not).

AJR's customers have, historically been reluctant to substantively alter a proven design and lose flight heritage, which locks them into increasingly deprecated hardware and methods, which means their vendors end up maintaining outdated capabilities just for you, which means money.

It means money either way, in supporting a means of taking a engine (or a subsystem) forward or simply securing the ability to produce.

For something as critical as a US engine, if not the preeminent US engine for decades, you'd think you'd want to secure it multiple ways.

This is only one aspect, but it's not a small one. So, if your customer is willing to pay the prices, and doesn't want you to significantly change things, why are you going to fight them on it?

Absolutely, because besides your customer, you need also to protect your company and its ability to due future work that isn't necessarily identical.

This is a false choice and you know it. Your customer's wishes are just a part of the story. Or you go nowhere fast.

The culture in launch has only recently been changing from the mantra of Heritage Uber Alles. The old vendors are starting to shift accordingly, though some admittedly faster than others. From what I've seen, which is admittedly only through one window into a many-roomed house, AJR is very quickly and aggressively making that shift.

Pardon my skepticism, but the follow through on that has in the past been lacking. And as recently as a few years ago, been walked back a few times, to the detriment of other programs more than once.

It got to the point where some doubted that if you put dynamite and a live detonator in a certain execs back pocket, with an itchy finger on a button, wouldn't make much difference.

Would be a nice, pleasant surprise to see a consistent story in place of the "Rocket Dying" mantra ... but I digress.

[CameronD]

I'm not sure if this got posted anywhere, so just in case it didn't:

07/12/2016 - Glasgow Prestwick Spaceport, XCOR and Orbital Access Limited cement partnership by signing strategic Memorandum of Understanding

Farnborough, UK, July 12, 2016 - US manned space launch vehicle designer XCOR Aerospace has signed a strategic Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with spaceplane design and operating company Orbital Access Limited and Glasgow Prestwick Spaceport. This partnership is supported by Scottish Enterprise, the Scottish Government’s economic development agency.

The MoU paves the way for the establishment of manned launch services at Prestwick using XCOR’s Lynx spacecraft with support from existing Scottish aerospace organisations.

http://www.xcor.com/news/strategic-partnership-with-glasgow-prestwick-spaceport-orbital-access-limited/

I guess this means XCOR are (a) still alive and (b) might still be building the Lynx?...

[Gliderflyer]

I guess this means XCOR are (a) still alive and (b) might still be building the Lynx?...

Both are correct. XCOR has had to refocus on other projects temporarily, but the Lynx isn't cancelled.

[QuantumG]

Uh huh. When you lay off the team that's working on a project and assign the rest of the company to other tasks, it's cancelled.

[john smith 19]

Yes and no. Reducing marginal costs can require significant upfront capital, between equipment, IRAD, and Delta-Qual.

Can, but not necessarily does.

AJR's customers have, historically been reluctant to substantively alter a proven design and lose flight heritage, which locks them into increasingly deprecated hardware and methods, which means their vendors end up maintaining outdated capabilities just for you, which means money. This is only one aspect, but it's not a small one. So, if your customer is willing to pay the prices, and doesn't want you to significantly change things, why are you going to fight them on it?

Saving taxpayers money has never been a priority but this seems like a cost benefit analysis with lots of talk about the cost, but none about the benefits.  Hand beating the tubes of an RL10 combustion chamber is a remarkable skill and clearly a difficult to maintain skill but outside beating the tubes for an RL10 who else uses such a skill, for example? 

The culture in launch has only recently been changing from the mantra of Heritage Uber Alles. The old vendors are starting to shift accordingly, though some admittedly faster than others. From what I've seen, which is admittedly only through one window into a many-roomed house, AJR is very quickly and aggressively making that shift.

Interesting. "Quickly" is not a word I'd ever consider linking to AJR's mfg operations. Their lobbying perhaps.

Speed is also relative. "Fast" by AJR's standards may not be that fast by other peoples standards.

[simonbp]

Uh huh. When you lay off the team that's working on a project and assign the rest of the company to other tasks, it's cancelled.

But they can't say that or customers would start looking for refunds, which would quickly bankrupt the company.

[jongoff]

Uh huh. When you lay off the team that's working on a project and assign the rest of the company to other tasks, it's cancelled.

But they can't say that or customers would start looking for refunds, which would quickly bankrupt the company.

Not necessarily. Most of the refundable part of their tickets is probably being held in escrow.

~Jon

[joek]

Uh huh. When you lay off the team that's working on a project and assign the rest of the company to other tasks, it's cancelled.

But they can't say that or customers would start looking for refunds, which would quickly bankrupt the company.

Not necessarily. Most of the refundable part of their tickets is probably being held in escrow.

Somewhere on Space Expeditions site (or maybe it was Moon and Back) there was a statement that all payments would be held in escrow.

However, the actual agreement states:

SXC shall have no obligation to hold any payments in escrow and may use such funds in the course of its business or operations.
...
There will be no refunds given as a result of any delays caused by any reason, seen or unforeseen, regardless of fault that are not covered by the Trip Cancellation Arrangement. A new scheduled LYNX MARK I flight may be assigned in case of any delays. The exact date of the new scheduled LYNX MARK I flight will be mutually decided by the parties.

The relevant part of  SXC cancellation diagram is shown below.  The full brochure with all the details is also attached for posterity.

[Gliderflyer]

Uh huh. When you lay off the team that's working on a project and assign the rest of the company to other tasks, it's cancelled.

Looking at the publically available information, I can see how people would assume it is cancelled. But considering I spent a portion of my day working on some parts for it, I think we will have to agree to disagree.

[zt]

Even though the program made great forward progress integrating the
vehicle structural elements during 2015 and early 2016 the progress on
the control surface elements lagged in design. In an effort to prevent
potential rework resulting from implementing designs not yet mature the
Lynx fabrication was paused, so our engineering team has gone back to
the design board.

from November 2016 newletter (http://www.xcor.com/media/65308/aerospace-report-nov-2016-no-ula-lr-v4.pdf), attached.

Does anyone know if there were actual problems with the design? Or anything about the proposed timeline of development and when building it would resume?

[docmordrid]

My read is that reworking their old design would be harder and/or more expensive than starting over with a clean sheet and modern fabbing.

[ChrisWilson68]

Why did they get so far along in building something without having critical design issues solved?

[QuantumG]

Why did they get so far along in building something without having critical design issues solved?

Comes from not having design and fabrication under the same roof.

[whitelancer64]

Why did they get so far along in building something without having critical design issues solved?

As I recall, the X-33 flight test vehicle got up to 95% complete by the time it was cancelled, in spite of several major design issues that had not been resolved.

[Kansan52]

Why did they get so far along in building something without having critical design issues solved?

As I recall, the X-33 flight test vehicle got up to 95% complete by the time it was cancelled, in spite of several major design issues that had not been resolved.

My memory as well and they had begun fab on a 2nd vehicle. And no one knows where they went after closing the program. Wonder what the launch site that was finished looks like now?