Author Topic: XCOR and the Lynx rocket (Read 620905 times)

Moe Grills · « **Reply #120 on:** 08/26/2011 07:52 pm »

Quote from: Robotbeat on 08/26/2011 04:34 am

Quote from: go4mars on 08/26/2011 03:43 am
Quote from: docmordrid on 08/25/2011 12:58 am

Reminds me of a quote about the early airplane pioneers:

"At that time [1909] the chief engineer was almost always the chief test pilot as well. That had the fortunate result of eliminating poor engineering early in aviation" (Igor Sikorsky)

True, as a generality, but I'm reminded that the aviation pioneer,
Otto Lileanthal was killed in a glider crash in 1896 after 5 years of safe gliding.
BTW, as an aside, Mr. Lileanthal was just months away from conversion work on turning a glider into a powered aircraft with an petrol motor when he was killed.
"What if? 1897 in Germany, instead of 1903 in North Carolina?

mlorrey · « **Reply #121 on:** 09/14/2011 11:51 am »

XCOR is hiring, I got an email about two engineering positions open there and a CNC machinist. Details should be on their website.

MrAnthonyDR · « **Reply #122 on:** 09/16/2011 09:23 am »

Quote from: manboy on 08/24/2011 11:44 pm

Summary of video 1: Test expected in fall of 2012. Xcor now employs about 30 people.

How does this compare to Virgin Galactic? (Out of interest)

EDIT: In terms of workforce size, not technical specs or mission profile (I think that stuff goes without saying).

docmordrid · « **Reply #123 on:** 09/16/2011 10:25 am »

From Outside Magazine -

Quote

LOCATION: Mojave, CA
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES: 50
BEST PERKS: Alternative work environment, Flex time, Fitness
HIRING? YES! virgingalactic.com

Virgin Galactic is the world’s first spaceline, offering a suborbital tourism experience to private individuals. TSC (or the Spaceship Company) is the manufacturer of Galactic’s spaceships and carrier aircraft that will take people into space.

We’re working on something that has never been done before—commercial space travel. There is a passion of all involved for building a small company up as it moves toward commercial operations.

Outside Magazine, September 2011

MrAnthonyDR · « **Reply #124 on:** 09/16/2011 10:28 am »

Thanks. 50 vs 30.

Robotbeat · « **Reply #125 on:** 09/16/2011 04:37 pm »

Quote from: MrAnthonyDR on 09/16/2011 10:28 am

Thanks. 50 vs 30.

I don't think this includes people working on the vehicle(s) at Scaled Composites or SpaceDev (working on the hybrid motors).

Another reason why I think the Lynx will end up being cheaper per passenger.

simonbp · « **Reply #126 on:** 09/16/2011 04:42 pm »

Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/16/2011 04:37 pm

Another reason why I think the Lynx will end up being cheaper per seat.

Definitely cheaper per flight, but remember that Lynx only has two seats, and one of those is the pilot! SS2, on the other hand, has room for six passengers. This difference is seen in the marketing: SS2 is aimed at tourists, while Lynx is really targeted at the research market (and possibly nanosat launch).

intlibber · « **Reply #127 on:** 09/20/2011 12:29 am »

Quote from: simonbp on 09/16/2011 04:42 pm

Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/16/2011 04:37 pm
Another reason why I think the Lynx will end up being cheaper per seat.

Definitely cheaper per flight, but remember that Lynx only has two seats, and one of those is the pilot! SS2, on the other hand, has room for six passengers. This difference is seen in the marketing: SS2 is aimed at tourists, while Lynx is really targeted at the research market (and possibly nanosat launch).

Lynx seats are priced at 95k USD, SS2 seats are 195k USD. Lynx could go as low as 50k USD per seat, I doubt SS2 could do the same. Its the economics of a single stage vs two stage system.

jongoff · « **Reply #128 on:** 09/20/2011 12:37 am »

Quote from: simonbp on 09/16/2011 04:42 pm

Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/16/2011 04:37 pm
Another reason why I think the Lynx will end up being cheaper per seat.

Definitely cheaper per flight, but remember that Lynx only has two seats, and one of those is the pilot! SS2, on the other hand, has room for six passengers. This difference is seen in the marketing: SS2 is aimed at tourists, while Lynx is really targeted at the research market (and possibly nanosat launch).

That's not entirely accurate. Lynx is definitely being marketed for "spaceflight participants" as well as researchers and nanosat applications. IIRC, their recent deal with the spaceport in Curacao was pretty clearly for space tourism applications.

~Jon

simonbp · « **Reply #129 on:** 09/20/2011 10:57 pm »

Quote from: intlibber on 09/20/2011 12:29 am

Lynx seats are priced at 95k USD, SS2 seats are 195k USD. Lynx could go as low as 50k USD per seat, I doubt SS2 could do the same. Its the economics of a single stage vs two stage system.

But is it really 12 times cheaper per flight? I really doubt it, and it's likely that the first few SS2 flights are paying for the development (as well as the exclusivity of being "first"), and after a few years the cost will come down considerably, to lower than for Lynx.

Long-term (after several years of operations), IMHO SS2 will be the price leader for passengers, while Lynx will only have a few passengers and be mostly used for suborbital research...

jongoff · « **Reply #130 on:** 09/20/2011 11:32 pm »

Quote from: simonbp on 09/20/2011 10:57 pm

Quote from: intlibber on 09/20/2011 12:29 am
Lynx seats are priced at 95k USD, SS2 seats are 195k USD. Lynx could go as low as 50k USD per seat, I doubt SS2 could do the same. Its the economics of a single stage vs two stage system.

But is it really 12 times cheaper per flight? I really doubt it, and it's likely that the first few SS2 flights are paying for the development (as well as the exclusivity of being "first"), and after a few years the cost will come down considerably, to lower than for Lynx.

Long-term (after several years of operations), IMHO SS2 will be the price leader for passengers, while Lynx will only have a few passengers and be mostly used for suborbital research...

While I have no way of knowing for sure, I actually expect Lynx to be the price leader. SS2 and WK2 are much bigger vehicles, they're building full assembly lines, have much more people involved, have hybrid propulsion which isn't very competitive, etc... AIUI, they've already spent over $150M on SS2/WK2 to-date, and were expecting to spend another $150M before getting into operations. XCOR is expecting a total Lynx dev cost of under $30M...

I dunno, I may just be speaking my biases, but I think that Lynx will at least be competitive with SS2/WK2, if not leading outright on cost per seat.

js117 · « **Reply #131 on:** 09/20/2011 11:45 pm »

Is XCOR Lynx rocket plane cheaper per flight because it not going as high
as SS2. 62 miles compared to over 100 miles for SS2.

mlorrey · « **Reply #132 on:** 09/21/2011 12:55 am »

Quote from: js117 on 09/20/2011 11:45 pm

Is XCOR Lynx rocket plane cheaper per flight because it not going as high
as SS2. 62 miles compared to over 100 miles for SS2.

The Mark I Lynx is going to 62 km, the Mk II Lynx is going to 100 km, same as SS2. Lynx engines are lighter, higher thrust, and higher Isp than SS2, and the Lynx doesnt need a humongous mothership built from scratch to carry it part way.

deltaV · « **Reply #133 on:** 09/21/2011 01:37 am »

Quote from: Robotbeat on 08/26/2011 04:34 am

Considering that rocket engines are at least as good at blowing up as they are at transporting you to space

At least as good at blowing up as they are at blowing down?

(Actually that should be blowing mostly sideways, but that doesn't sound as good.)

hop · « **Reply #134 on:** 09/21/2011 02:42 am »

Quote from: simonbp on 09/20/2011 10:57 pm

But is it really 12 times cheaper per flight? I really doubt it, and it's likely that the first few SS2 flights are paying for the development (as well as the exclusivity of being "first"), and after a few years the cost will come down considerably, to lower than for Lynx.

I wouldn't be surprised. From what I can gather, Lynx is intended to be able to gas up and go like EZ-Rocket and the RRL planes. SS2 has a large jet carrier plane, and hybrids that need to be swapped/refurbished every flight.

The XCOR web site claims that EZ-Rocket cost $900/flight and much of that was helium ( http://www.xcor.com/products/vehicles/ez-rocket.html ) Obviously Lynx is a different beast, but if they achieve the operating characteristics they are shooting for, I don't see why it couldn't fly for a modest multiple of propellant cost. SS2 is never going to do that.

Bill White · « **Reply #135 on:** 09/21/2011 03:26 am »

Perhaps XCOR could sell Lynx airframes by setting up a league to race up to 100 km and later 100 miles.

Use a long and wide runway for simultaneous take offs of as many Lynx as can fit and let paying partners ride along in the passenger seat.

docmordrid · « **Reply #136 on:** 09/21/2011 02:01 pm »

In one of his many talks Greason hinted at a long-term project involving a runway-to-orbit system. No details, but I wouldn't bet against them.

go4mars · « **Reply #137 on:** 09/21/2011 02:14 pm »

Quote from: docmordrid on 09/21/2011 02:01 pm

In one of his many talks Greason hinted at a long-term project involving a runway-to-orbit system. No details, but I wouldn't bet against them.

I hope XCOR finds it's revenue stream to exceed expectations once Lynx is paying back. I would love to see what architecture and hardware they are planning for orbital stuff!

p.s. That would be a very[/i] long runway!

jongoff · « **Reply #138 on:** 09/21/2011 02:38 pm »

Quote from: docmordrid on 09/21/2011 02:01 pm

In one of his many talks Greason hinted at a long-term project involving a runway-to-orbit system. No details, but I wouldn't bet against them.

Well, they're already talking about nanosat launch using Lynx as a first stage, but they've also talked about doing fully-reusable TSTO designs down the road that could fly people to orbit...but my guess is that's a fair ways off.

~Jon

douglas100 · « **Reply #139 on:** 09/21/2011 02:49 pm »

I prefer Lynx to SS2 for reasons already given in this thread: a single vehicle instead of two and liquid propellant engines as opposed to a hybrid. Their engines are thoroughly tested and seem very reliable. Where I'm slightly uneasy is in the aerodynamic side of things. They don't have the same experience with aircraft design that Scaled has. They don't have "carefree" re-entry. The Lynx's attitude will have to be carefully controlled during descent. I'm thinking back to the X-15 which was lost in these circumstances.