XCOR and the Lynx rocket

[Verio Fryar]

XCOR ‏@XCOR Dec 1

Back to the design board!!

[Lar]

What does that actually MEAN? I saw that tweet and was "Huh?" for quite some time.

[QuantumG]

The design for the wings is junk... the contractor who did it (and was supposed to do the manufacturing) didn't know what they were doing. So they're restarting with a new contractor, hopefully with better insight this time.

But unless they've found more funding, they won't be doing much more than redesign for a while.

[docmordrid]

The design for the wings is junk... the contractor who did it (and was supposed to do the manufacturing) didn't know what they were doing. So they're restarting with a new contractor, hopefully with better insight this time.
>

Wasn't that ATK Aerospace Structures Division??

http://www.xcor.com/news/xcor-announces-atk-as-lynx-mark-i-wing-detailed-design-build-contractor/

[Robotbeat]

The design for the wings is junk... the contractor who did it (and was supposed to do the manufacturing) didn't know what they were doing. So they're restarting with a new contractor, hopefully with better insight this time.

But unless they've found more funding, they won't be doing much more than redesign for a while.

It's still good news to me, as I assumed no news about XCOR meant it was dead. And at least they have a reason for their lack of progress before.

[Archibald]

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?

Never heard of a second X-33. As for the first vehicle, between March and November 2001 the Air Force was tempted to take over the program but did nothing in the end. The X-33 was dismantled at Edwards and the stripped-down hull is somewhere  in the outback there.

[Archibald]

The design for the wings is junk... the contractor who did it (and was supposed to do the manufacturing) didn't know what they were doing. So they're restarting with a new contractor, hopefully with better insight this time.
>

Wasn't that ATK Aerospace Structures Division??

http://www.xcor.com/news/xcor-announces-atk-as-lynx-mark-i-wing-detailed-design-build-contractor/

Naughty ATK, the usual aerospace vilain that only wants solid rocket engines. Maybe they sabotaged XCOR Lynx because it used liquid-fueled propellants ? (this was tongue in cheek)

[QuantumG]

http://spacenews.com/xcor-taps-atk-aerospace-for-wings-and-control-surfaces/

the Luka, Miss., ATK subsidiary

I was under the impression that this didn't last long though, ATK tapped Quartus Engineering to do the actual design and XCOR was working closely with them directly. QE ended up doing the cockpit work as well.

[RanulfC]

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?

Never heard of a second X-33. As for the first vehicle, between March and November 2001 the Air Force was tempted to take over the program but did nothing in the end. The X-33 was dismantled at Edwards and the stripped-down hull is somewhere  in the outback there.

What "launch site"? IIRC it was supposed to launch from White Sands Utah from a site the Air Force never spent a dime on refurbishing. As far as I can tell the Air Force was never really "interested" in the X-33 only as a possible micro-launch booster at some point but not in the vehicle or test program itself. The weren't going to spend anything on it unless they were specifically required to which is why they never actually built the launch site they were tasked with. I do seem to recall that they were the ones who pointed out most of the design issues in the first place.

Randy

[mheney]

X33 != XCOR Lynx ....

[whitelancer64]

What "launch site"? IIRC it was supposed to launch from White Sands Utah from a site the Air Force never spent a dime on refurbishing. As far as I can tell the Air Force was never really "interested" in the X-33 only as a possible micro-launch booster at some point but not in the vehicle or test program itself. The weren't going to spend anything on it unless they were specifically required to which is why they never actually built the launch site they were tasked with. I do seem to recall that they were the ones who pointed out most of the design issues in the first place.

Randy

A launch site was specially built for the X-33 at Edwards Air Force Base.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/x-33-launch-site-groundbreaking-ceremony-held-at-edwards-air-force-base-77557012.html

http://aviationweek.com/awin/x-33-launch-site-completed-edwards-afb

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/multimedia/imagegallery/X-33/PR2823-9.html

[Lar]

Let's stay on topic.. Unless you're saying that the X33 launch site would somehow be suitable for Lynx, or some other tie in, talking about X33 probably isn't on topic.

[Gliderflyer]

It's not Lynx related, but the November report also has a fairly decent image of the 8H21 compared to some other XCOR engines. To my knowledge, the only other 8H21 pictures are of an old 3D printed model at the 2015 Space Symposium.

[jongoff]

It was sad to hear that Aleta Jackson, one of the XCOR founders, passed away this last week from cancer. It's sad that she didn't live to see their goal of suborbital RLV flight work out. I didn't interact with Aleta that much, but she was always kind and helpful. XCOR helped us out at Masten a lot during the NGLLC.

~Jon

[Katana]

It's not Lynx related, but the November report also has a fairly decent image of the 8H21 compared to some other XCOR engines. To my knowledge, the only other 8H21 pictures are of an old 3D printed model at the 2015 Space Symposium.

Unusual short chamber

[FutureSpaceTourist]

We decided to create a new XCOR Astronaut Infographic which reflects the most important information on our prestigious Astronaut group!!

https://twitter.com/xcorspaceexp/status/810847724442619904

[savuporo]

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/xcor-partners-with-syncroness-inc-for-rapid-product-development-300432245.html

Going to external engineering services model?

[Gliderflyer]

ULA has the 5H25 engine and hydrogen pump on display at their Space Symposium booth:

If you are at the #33SS don't forget to stop by @ulalaunch's booth to check out the XR-5H25 from @XCOR

https://twitter.com/RocketPG/status/849299977939673089

This piston pump was used to close the loop on the @XCOR thermodynamic cycle. Come visit it at @ulalaunch booth 823 #33SS #SpaceSymposium

https://twitter.com/RocketPG/status/849678478886584320

[CameronD]

ULA has the 5H25 engine and hydrogen pump on display at their Space Symposium booth:

All that hard work developing the engine and piston pump and they end up a permanent part of a ULA static display?!??  That can't be a good thing for the Lynx program.. 

[Gliderflyer]

ULA has the 5H25 engine and hydrogen pump on display at their Space Symposium booth:

All that hard work developing the engine and piston pump and they end up a permanent part of a ULA static display?!??  That can't be a good thing for the Lynx program.. 

Easy on the doom and gloom . The 5H25 was a development engine that we tested in 2015, and while the technology is similar, it isn't part of the Lynx program. This engine and pump were built for ULA as a subscale demonstrator for the 8H21. Also, as I understand it, the hardware isn't a permanent display and we sent it to them just for the conference.