Author Topic: XCOR and the Lynx rocket (Read 620883 times)

mlorrey · « **Reply #140 on:** 09/21/2011 03:54 pm »

Quote from: douglas100 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.

The X-15 was an unswept design, so was more prone to flat spins and other yaw/pitch issues. Lynx is swept wing, and with wingtip vertical stabilizers, and large flaps and aelerons, does provide a significant degree of "care-free" re-entry stability akin to the Dyna-Soar design. With exhaustion of fuel, the vehicle will be more nose heavy than at takeoff, so will reenter nose-down. Flap settings will ensure its nose down reentry conforms to a high angle of attack pitch.

Rutan's feathering system, while ingenious, is not entirely necessary, and actually exhibits a failure risk if it is unable to exit from feathering mode due to mechanical failure, it wont be able to glide to a landing.

mlorrey · « **Reply #141 on:** 09/21/2011 04:26 pm »

Quote from: deltaV 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.)

Actually, unlike Scaled and Virgin, XCOR has a perfect safety record, while having flown several times more missions.

douglas100 · « **Reply #142 on:** 09/21/2011 08:11 pm »

Quote from: mlorrey on 09/21/2011 03:54 pm

Rutan's feathering system, while ingenious, is not entirely necessary, and actually exhibits a failure risk if it is unable to exit from feathering mode due to mechanical failure, it wont be able to glide to a landing.

Agree with that.

mlorrey · « **Reply #143 on:** 09/22/2011 02:40 am »

An additional issue with cost per flight and flight rates: because Lynx is being built as a gas and go vehicle, its ability to sustain high flight rates will likely allow it to catch up to VG's present lead in testing, and XCOR's cost per test is significantly less. Rutan said they need 50-100 suborbital flights to get FAA certification, with pundits estimating it will be 2014 before SS2 is certified. That number of flights is 2-3 months work for Lynx, so XCOR could finish Lynx Mk I by June of 2013 and still beat VG to market.

mlorrey · « **Reply #144 on:** 10/04/2011 12:37 am »

http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/new-space-venture-could-bring-every-city-on-earth-within-two-hours-travel-20111103-ncx

go4mars · « **Reply #145 on:** 10/04/2011 02:12 am »

Quote from: mlorrey on 10/04/2011 12:37 am

http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/new-space-venture-could-bring-every-city-on-earth-within-two-hours-travel-20111103-ncx

Thanks for posting this!

$93k by 2014. I better buy a piggy bank!

douglas100 · « **Reply #146 on:** 10/04/2011 08:21 am »

The most important word in the headline is "could."

I could see Lynx succeeding in the niche market of flying rich tourists to the edge of space, but whether there is a market for city to city flights by spaceplanes is a very different matter.

Apart from that, the main difficulties are not technological but operational, regulatory and safety issues. For example, the noise of rocket engines would be unacceptable at a normal airport. Remember the trouble Concorde had with this issue?

simonbp · « **Reply #147 on:** 10/04/2011 09:16 am »

The trouble for Concorde was not the noise at the airport, but during the flight. A suborbital transport would not nesisarilly have the same problem.

douglas100 · « **Reply #148 on:** 10/04/2011 03:31 pm »

Quote from: simonbp on 10/04/2011 09:16 am

The trouble for Concorde was not the noise at the airport, but during the flight. A suborbital transport would not nesisarilly have the same problem.

There could be sonic booms on arrival, like the Shuttle. And I think rocket planes will have to operate away from residential areas because of noise. The only way to get round that restriction would perhaps be to air launch them like SS2. Then you lose the operational advantage of speed as you lose time climbing to launch altitude.

I think the market for suborbital commercial point-to-point flight is problematical. I believe it would be smaller than the potential SST market. And you'll notice that no one is exactly rushing in to replace Concorde. There have been a number of proposed supersonic bizjet schemes but none have succeeded yet.

Robotbeat · « **Reply #149 on:** 10/04/2011 03:58 pm »

While not practical for point-to-point transport, Lynx probably would be subsonic when near the ground... Lynx has much higher lift (proportionally) than Shuttle.

It's true that you need a system almost capable of reaching orbit to make intercontinental point-to-point transport realistic.

daj24 · « **Reply #150 on:** 10/04/2011 04:01 pm »

Quote from: simonbp on 10/04/2011 09:16 am

The trouble for Concorde was not the noise at the airport, but during the flight. A suborbital transport would not nesisarilly have the same problem.

No, I think that the trouble with the Concorde was that it was loud all of the time, not just the sonic booms. It flew into Oshkosh one year and I remember thinking that it was louder than a Harrier in hover mode. While it was leaving the area on a flight (in the late evening) all I could see was a couple of dots of lights (the engines) in the distance and I could still hear it.

Bill White · « **Reply #151 on:** 10/04/2011 04:14 pm »

The trouble with Concorde was that it wasn't profitable (or at least less profitable than subsonic alternatives).

douglas100 · « **Reply #152 on:** 10/04/2011 06:38 pm »

Sorry, I should have known that bringing up Concorde would tempt us to go OT.

My point was that I think that suborbital transport vehicles will have to use specialised space ports away from built up areas if they use rocket engines to take off from a runway, like Lynx.

I'm not currently convinced there is a market for such a service. As for the future, who knows?

Bill White · « **Reply #153 on:** 10/04/2011 07:01 pm »

Lynx faces the same core issue as Concorde - how to make a profit with a really cool machine.

mlorrey · « **Reply #154 on:** 10/09/2011 07:01 am »

Quote from: Bill White on 10/04/2011 07:01 pm

Lynx faces the same core issue as Concorde - how to make a profit with a really cool machine.

Lynx underbids its closest competitor by 50% and has plenty of room to underbid in a price war. It has no trouble making a profit on the current numbers. Lets do a simple business case. As i'm hearing it, a Lynx is selling for approximately 6-10 million USD (someone correct me if I'm wrong) and is capable of making 4-6 flights per day, carrying one passenger at $95k per flight PLUS additional revenue from science payloads, lets say another $40k from them (total guestimate, someone throw better numbers at me if I'm off), for a per flight revenue of $135,000, and a per day revenue of $540,000-$810,000. If each engine can handle 1000 flights, that means they can go for 180-250 days between major phase dock inspections/overhauls, which should last no more than two weeks at most based on my own flightline experience in the military. I don't know what XCOR is charging for new engine sets or engine overhauls, but 180 x $810,000 = $145,800,000 in gross revenue at 6 flights per day, or 250 x $540,000 = $135,000,000 at 4 flights per day. Fuel costs are miniscule, insurance costs are probably significant, plus the costs of training your passengers to be spaceflight participants (ground school, vomit comet flights, etc), however I don't think that the operating costs are going to be anywhere near 50% or greater. Frankly, if I had the money sitting around, I'd buy a Lynx and open an operation myself. This seems to me to be a really golden opportunity.

douglas100 · « **Reply #155 on:** 10/09/2011 11:09 pm »

Just to make it clear: in the post above I was questioning the market for suborbital intercontinental transportation, not the market for Lynx itself. And in addition to what mlorrey posted, Lynx has other potential markets, like suborbital science missions and nanosat launch.

Patchouli · « **Reply #156 on:** 10/09/2011 11:23 pm »

Quote from: mlorrey on 10/09/2011 07:01 am

Quote from: Bill White on 10/04/2011 07:01 pm
Lynx faces the same core issue as Concorde - how to make a profit with a really cool machine.

Lynx underbids its closest competitor by 50% and has plenty of room to underbid in a price war. It has no trouble making a profit on the current numbers. Lets do a simple business case. As i'm hearing it, a Lynx is selling for approximately 6-10 million USD (someone correct me if I'm wrong) and is capable of making 4-6 flights per day, carrying one passenger at $95k per flight PLUS additional revenue from science payloads, lets say another $40k from them (total guestimate, someone throw better numbers at me if I'm off), for a per flight revenue of $135,000, and a per day revenue of $540,000-$810,000. If each engine can handle 1000 flights, that means they can go for 180-250 days between major phase dock inspections/overhauls, which should last no more than two weeks at most based on my own flightline experience in the military. I don't know what XCOR is charging for new engine sets or engine overhauls, but 180 x $810,000 = $145,800,000 in gross revenue at 6 flights per day, or 250 x $540,000 = $135,000,000 at 4 flights per day. Fuel costs are miniscule, insurance costs are probably significant, plus the costs of training your passengers to be spaceflight participants (ground school, vomit comet flights, etc), however I don't think that the operating costs are going to be anywhere near 50% or greater. Frankly, if I had the money sitting around, I'd buy a Lynx and open an operation myself. This seems to me to be a really golden opportunity.

It would be unfair to compare Lynx to the Concord as it's a far simpler vehicle that does not require significant infrastructure.

I think nano sats,science payloads and environmental observation may be big markets for the vehicle.

I think the killer application for Lynx would be pretty much acting like a reusable sounding rocket.
For example a small university could do something no possible before such as fly a space telescope without having to wait years for it to be piggy backed on another mission.

A plus they get their equipment back intact something even balloons don't do all the time.

savuporo · « **Reply #157 on:** 10/10/2011 06:55 am »

Quote from: mlorrey on 10/09/2011 07:01 am

Lets do a simple business case. As i'm hearing it, a Lynx is selling for approximately 6-10 million USD (someone correct me if I'm wrong) and is capable of making 4-6 flights per day, carrying one passenger at $95k per flight PLUS additional revenue from science payloads, lets say another $40k from them (total guestimate, someone throw better numbers at me if I'm off), for a per flight revenue of $135,000, and a per day revenue of $540,000-$810,000. ...

No offence, but this math looks a lot like this story about the old woman who decided to pitch one stack of hay every day, getting her herd well fed with 365 stacks a year ..

Robotbeat · « **Reply #158 on:** 10/10/2011 04:31 pm »

I actually agree that Lynx should be able to make a good profit (at suborbital tourism). And I think it could do so even when the ticket price gets down to only $10k-$20k, and at that price level, there are a LOT of (regular, middle-class) people who would put riding into space on their bucket list. I mean, just look at how many people go on cruises, who go skydiving, etc. By being able to hook into the middle class, suborbital tourism could become big business, really big. Tens of thousands of flights per year (if the price can get down below $20k) isn't unrealistic, IMHO.

And because XCor is a spaceship manufacturer instead of a suborbital provider, you don't have this problem where the provider won't allow the price per passenger to get too low for maximum provider profit... You'll have a situation where you might have 5-10 Lynx operators competing with each other on price (and probably other spacecraft, too, like SpaceShipTwo/Three), instead of a single provider who can set the price high to keep margins high (if a single provider in a non-monopolistic market did that, they would lose all their business to a competitor).

mlorrey · « **Reply #159 on:** 10/11/2011 01:14 am »

Quote from: savuporo on 10/10/2011 06:55 am

Quote from: mlorrey on 10/09/2011 07:01 am
Lets do a simple business case. As i'm hearing it, a Lynx is selling for approximately 6-10 million USD (someone correct me if I'm wrong) and is capable of making 4-6 flights per day, carrying one passenger at $95k per flight PLUS additional revenue from science payloads, lets say another $40k from them (total guestimate, someone throw better numbers at me if I'm off), for a per flight revenue of $135,000, and a per day revenue of $540,000-$810,000. ...

No offence, but this math looks a lot like this story about the old woman who decided to pitch one stack of hay every day, getting her herd well fed with 365 stacks a year ..

Um, no, because as youll note in the text you deleted, I accounted for phase inspection / overhaul down time and treated such as the end of a major revenue cycle for the vehicle, which is common practice with airlines, which you'd know if you had any experience with them. Granted i only calculated revenues and not expenses, which I also admitted, and didnt go into detail on them because I dont have any hard fast numbers to guesstimate on so anything I said there would be pure WAG.