XCOR and the Lynx rocket

[Robert Thompson]

Well, like you said. I had thought I was completely caught up on XCOR. I wear their shirts everywhere.

[Robotbeat]

Look at De Long's past work on air launch orbital systems. XCOR is serious about it, though they haven't been flashy about it.

[Robotbeat]

Background, business plan, choice of wings, ideas for two-stage (winged?) orbital vehicle. (4/11)

Talks about orbital vehicle starting around 4:00, and again at 6:15, talking about the orbital vehicle's heritage being from the Lynx.

[Robotbeat]

>
A multi-passenger spacecraft  (Mark III? Super Lynx?) with three LH2/LOX engines delivering a total 90,000Ibf thrust?
Is that a possibility?

Pardon the ads in this Aero TV video, but it directly addresses your question.

The first half of this talk is about the orbital vehicle. I thought I saw a picture of the concept, but here are some concepts DeLong has worked on:
http://xcor.com/products/vehicles/frequent_flyer_and_teledyne_brown_spaceplane.html

XCOR is much more focused on the orbital concept than I think the vast majority of the space community realizes.

[go4mars]

From your link:  What does the part I underlined mean?

"For example, by using lower wing loading, he sacrificed some weight and speed, but was able to design a vehicle that did not need the Space Shuttle’s heavy, fragile, and expensive heat protection tiles for re-entry."   


btw, if I had a billion dollars to invest, I would see how much Greason could realistically accept as an investment.  I think there's a reasonably good chance that he'll be the near-earth guy, and Elon will be the further afield and/or bigger stuff guy. 

[FutureSpaceTourist]

The news about XCR's orbital concept is very welcome and interesting.

It's not clear to me, from a customer perspective, what this offers beyond the F9R (if you'll accept for the moment that SpaceX achieve that in, say, the next 5 years). Presumably even if XCOR were to use the Stratolaunch carrier plane, payload to LEO is likely to be less than F9R (or at least not much more). If they use an adapted commercial airliner, eg 747, I assume the payload will be even less?

$1M per passenger to LEO is ambitious and obviously a lot cheaper than current pricing. I wouldn't expect SpaceX to get in that ball park for a while but presumably it'd take XCOR years (a decade?) to develop an orbital system.

Maybe increased operational flexibility, such as not needing dedicated launch facilities, gives an edge?

[Robotbeat]

Intact abort. And XCOR has a focus on operational reusability beyond anything SpaceX has ever done. XCOR has shown that a single manned rocket-powered vehicle can be flown, refueled, and flown again several times a day, for potentially hundreds of times.

I still think SpaceX's vertical landing approach is better, but XCOR has very much the right attitude about all of this.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

I still think SpaceX's vertical landing approach is better, but XCOR has very much the right attitude about all of this.

Thanks for the response. Have XCOR said anything about the landing approach of their rocket powered stages, or are you extrapolating from their (and DeLong's) previous work?!

I agree entirely about XCOR's attitude and philosophy. Funding has clearly been their limiting factor so far.

[kkattula]

From what Jeff Greason said in the Aero video, it sounds like the XCOR orbital first stage will be another in-house design, not a converted airliner or the stratolaunch carrier.

Which kind of makes sense because their current development efforts are focused on a reusable sub-orbital rocket-plane. Which has a flight profile close to what would be needed for a HTHL RLV first stage. Imagine something similar to Lynx, only 10 or 20 times more massive, carrying a much smaller, orbital rocketplane.

If they can deploy their orbital vehicle at 50 km and 1000 m/s, a single stage with vacuum optimised engines needs a MR of about 7 using kerolox, or 4.5 using hydrolox. Less than half what a SSTO needs.

It's quite interesting how Scaled, and now XCOR, have shown that a Mach 4, sub-orbital rocketplane doesn't have to look like the X-15 or the XB-70, and doesn't have to cost billions to develop. Climbing high, before going fast, provides a much gentler environment.  IIRC, SS1, although doing more than Mach 3, never exceeded 190 kts IAS.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

it sounds like the XCOR orbital first stage will be another in-house design, not a converted airliner or the stratolaunch carrier.

But people at Jeff's SA'13 talk, eg Clark Lindsey, have reported that Jeff said they would not be doing a bespoke aircraft and would be buying a commercial one instead. I suspect XCOR just don't have the resources to develop a large carrier aircraft.

[Galactic Penguin SST]

Am I the only one who is pessimistic at the sudden surge in the number of start-ups trying to get a air-launch or land-based cubesat launcher? (LauncherOne, Stratorlaunch, this one by Lynx, IIRC Amarillo and Masten are working something too?) It seems that the number of customers hasn't really risen that much for the past few years, and they needs to fight against the position for secondary payloads. Are they really believing that they can lower the launch costs by a large factor? 

I guess Lynx would put this project on the back-burner until they got their plane pass the von Karman line.....

[QuantumG]

Don't worry about the market getting crowded.. that requires the vehicles to actually fly

Here's hoping Lynx does soon.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

QuantumG is right! And yes they do believe they will reduce costs by an order of magnitude or more. As to whether that will actually increase demand significantly no one knows. I think it will, in time, but as even Elon Musk says it's an act of faith at the moment.

[yg1968]

To be clear, he meant that he intends XCOR to buy a carrier aircraft, not that they are selling carrier aircraft.

Also, the LH2 adds one shift (6-8 hours) to the turnaround, but helps a lot of other things.

1- Clark Lindsey summarized it this way:

Carrier aircraft plus two rocket powered reusable stages
Not a purpose-built carrier

http://www.newspacewatch.com/articles/space-access03913-sat-morning-part-2.html

2- Jeff Foust tweeted this:

Greason: orbital system would use an existing aircraft (not custom-built); both rocket-powered stages would be reusable.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/323148686907568129

Both of which confirms your understanding.

[yg1968]

Here is a couple of interesting quotes from Greason from his Space Access presentation:

Greason: market studies of markets that don't exist yet are, if you're lucky, worth the paper they're printed on.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/323147978674163712

Greason: Not going to get low operations costs by studying, you have to actually fly.

https://twitter.com/spacecom/status/323139711562559488

[simonbp]

Both of which confirms your understanding.

Jeff was in the row ahead of me, Clark I believe behind.

Don't expect too much from the orbital project until a) Lynx is flying regularly and b) the move to Midland is finished. Both need to happen before XCOR is willing to spend real effort on a new development project.

[Robotbeat]

Cubesat market has grown significantly and continually, so I do think there is some possibility for cubesat launcher market. but will never ever account for a significant amount of mass, which is fine. But it is a stepping stone to larger goals.

And many of these projects are NOT new, even if you're just now hearing about them.

[blazotron]

From your link:  What does the part I underlined mean?

"For example, by using lower wing loading, he sacrificed some weight and speed, but was able to design a vehicle that did not need the Space Shuttle’s heavy, fragile, and expensive heat protection tiles for re-entry."   

He means the ratio of vehicle weight to wing area was lower, which tends to reduce peak heat flux for reentry vehicles.  It is notable, however, that for a winged vehicle, the leading edges suffer the harshest environment during entry and reducing wing loading doesn't help all that much.  Thus, the wing leading edges would still need advanced protective materials at the very least.

[kkattula]

From your link:  What does the part I underlined mean?

"For example, by using lower wing loading, he sacrificed some weight and speed, but was able to design a vehicle that did not need the Space Shuttle’s heavy, fragile, and expensive heat protection tiles for re-entry."   

He means the ratio of vehicle weight to wing area was lower, which tends to reduce peak heat flux for reentry vehicles.  It is notable, however, that for a winged vehicle, the leading edges suffer the harshest environment during entry and reducing wing loading doesn't help all that much.  Thus, the wing leading edges would still need advanced protective materials at the very least.

Or use a very wide chord wing, with the ultimate evolution of that being a lifting body.

[docmordrid]

From your link:  What does the part I underlined mean?

"For example, by using lower wing loading, he sacrificed some weight and speed, but was able to design a vehicle that did not need the Space Shuttle’s heavy, fragile, and expensive heat protection tiles for re-entry."   

He means the ratio of vehicle weight to wing area was lower, which tends to reduce peak heat flux for reentry vehicles.  It is notable, however, that for a winged vehicle, the leading edges suffer the harshest environment during entry and reducing wing loading doesn't help all that much.  Thus, the wing leading edges would still need advanced protective materials at the very least.

Or use a very wide chord wing, with the ultimate evolution of that being a lifting body.

Which is already well along at Sierra Nevada with Dream Chaser. This could get interesting.