XCOR and the Lynx rocket

[beancounter]

IMO, Lynx is a much bigger game-changer than just a sub-orbital research & tourist vehicle.

If it succeeds, they will have proven an inexpensive, reusable first stage, with 'gas & go' operations.

From that point on, there is no technical argument against scaling up to EELV class or larger. That lowers the bar tremendously for anyone proposing (or raising capital) for something along those lines.

I love the way people talk about scaling up as if it was a no-brainer.  It isn't you know.  If it was that easy, lots would no doubt have done it but the fact remains, very few have even tried it.  One of the most recent is Scaled and even then, they ended up with basically 2 brand new craft and developments taken lots longer than expected.  SpaceX is one of the few who have done it with orbital vehicles.  EELV class or larger is really a bit rich.

[sandrot]

IMO, Lynx is a much bigger game-changer than just a sub-orbital research & tourist vehicle.

If it succeeds, they will have proven an inexpensive, reusable first stage, with 'gas & go' operations.

From that point on, there is no technical argument against scaling up to EELV class or larger. That lowers the bar tremendously for anyone proposing (or raising capital) for something along those lines.

I love the way people talk about scaling up as if it was a no-brainer.  It isn't you know.  If it was that easy, lots would no doubt have done it but the fact remains, very few have even tried it.  One of the most recent is Scaled and even then, they ended up with basically 2 brand new craft and developments taken lots longer than expected.  SpaceX is one of the few who have done it with orbital vehicles.  EELV class or larger is really a bit rich.

Remember SpaceShipOne? That was back in 2004! That's so seven years ago.

[mlorrey]

IMO, Lynx is a much bigger game-changer than just a sub-orbital research & tourist vehicle.

If it succeeds, they will have proven an inexpensive, reusable first stage, with 'gas & go' operations.

From that point on, there is no technical argument against scaling up to EELV class or larger. That lowers the bar tremendously for anyone proposing (or raising capital) for something along those lines.

I love the way people talk about scaling up as if it was a no-brainer.  It isn't you know.  If it was that easy, lots would no doubt have done it but the fact remains, very few have even tried it.  One of the most recent is Scaled and even then, they ended up with basically 2 brand new craft and developments taken lots longer than expected.  SpaceX is one of the few who have done it with orbital vehicles.  EELV class or larger is really a bit rich.

Remember SpaceShipOne? That was back in 2004! That's so seven years ago.

Well yes, but there wasn't any real reason they could not have initiated suborbital commercial operations with the SS1 vehicle, it had two passenger seats. Shelving that vehicle was IMHO a bad idea, they could easily have capitalized the SS2 vehicle off of SS1 profits. All the delays in SS2 due to having to totally redo the propulsion, etc have been damaging to the public perception of SS1 as a sort of one-hit-wonder.

The only plus side is that this misstep by Scaled and Virgin on shelving SS1 has given XCOR time to catch up with IMHO a more advanced system.

[Robotbeat]

IMO, Lynx is a much bigger game-changer than just a sub-orbital research & tourist vehicle.

If it succeeds, they will have proven an inexpensive, reusable first stage, with 'gas & go' operations.

From that point on, there is no technical argument against scaling up to EELV class or larger. That lowers the bar tremendously for anyone proposing (or raising capital) for something along those lines.

I love the way people talk about scaling up as if it was a no-brainer.  It isn't you know.  If it was that easy, lots would no doubt have done it but the fact remains, very few have even tried it.  One of the most recent is Scaled and even then, they ended up with basically 2 brand new craft and developments taken lots longer than expected.  SpaceX is one of the few who have done it with orbital vehicles.  EELV class or larger is really a bit rich.

Remember SpaceShipOne? That was back in 2004! That's so seven years ago.

Well yes, but there wasn't any real reason they could not have initiated suborbital commercial operations with the SS1 vehicle, it had two passenger seats. Shelving that vehicle was IMHO a bad idea, they could easily have capitalized the SS2 vehicle off of SS1 profits. All the delays in SS2 due to having to totally redo the propulsion, etc have been damaging to the public perception of SS1 as a sort of one-hit-wonder.

The only plus side is that this misstep by Scaled and Virgin on shelving SS1 has given XCOR time to catch up with IMHO a more advanced system.

There may have been some design issues with SS1 that doomed the approach for commercial use. Since they can't "gas and go" like the Lynx can (or, rather, will), they needed to be able to put more passengers on it. Remember, both SS1 and SS2 need 2 craft in order to get to space, at least doubling the number of pilots needed. That also means longer to climb to altitude. Their propellant choice (hybrid) probably also means they can do at most one launch a day per vehicle pair. More overhead... Not as high flightrate... Their only choice was probably to go for larger scale in order to try to make up for those two drawbacks when hundreds of passengers are flying a year (not unrealistic, IMHO, considering that there are thousands of zero-gee parabolic flights a year). Also, having a larger carrier vehicle gives them more options when it comes to airlaunched orbital rockets.

I wonder about a Lynx-like vehicle carried aloft by a White Knight II-like vehicle... Might get closer to orbit to catch a tether or something.

[mlorrey]

I was under the impression that the solid fuel engine on SS1 was clamped on and could be swapped out in a few hours, and of course, refilling a NOx tank is as easy as a LOX tank. No reason they couldn't do at least 1 flight a day. My only real concern with that vehicle was the roll control issue.

Obviously Lynx will be capable of multiple flights per day, which makes up for the minimal seating, the ride from ground up is obviously superior from an experience standpoint (pulling a zoom maneuver off a runway always beats one made at 35,000 ft for adrenaline, hands down), the view is superior, and its being built from the start as being very capable of serving the research community rather than just as an add-on afterthought.

I see Virgin is scrambling now to do a big "me too, but we still are first, who is xcor? never heard of em" routine wrt the research community.

[Robert Thompson]

A Virgin Galactic niche group will be those who must share the experience, and this carries a premium. This premium experience means a vast infrastructure, and a less distributable operation. An Xcor niche group will be individuals who need not share the experience, and the smaller infrastructure will allow a more distributable operation.

The following is, as far as I can get data, a comparison of offerings per person.

Weightlessness commodity
SS2: 110,000 meters * 6 min * 60 sec / cost $200,000 = 198 meter-seconds/dollar
<http://www.virgingalactic.com/overview/spaceships/>
<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1319464/Virgin-Galactic-tourism-rocket-SpaceShipTwo-embarks-solo-glide-flight.html>
Lynx: 100,000 meters * 3 min * 60 sec / $95,000 = 189 meter-seconds/dollar
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_rocketplane>
Vomit Comet: 10,000 meters * 30 sec / $5000 = 60 meter-seconds/dollar

High altitude commodity
Mig25: 25,000 meters * 30 min * 60 sec / cost $20,800 = 2163 meter-seconds/dollar
<http://rusadventures.com/tour6.shtml>

[kkattula]

...
The following is, as far as I can get data, a comparison of offerings per person.

Weightlessness commodity
SS2: 110,000 meters * 6 min * 60 sec / cost $200,000 = 198 meter-seconds/dollar

Lynx is around 65,000 m for Mk I

Mk II should be around 110,000 m &  6 min, similar to SS2.

But your units are wrong. You haven't included the square meterage of window space available to each participant. Or perhaps that should be vieing area in degrees ^2?

Then again, SS2 allows people to float around the cabin, whereas Lynx wouldn't. But you can't look out the window while doing zero-g stunts.


IMO, Lynx will offer a far better flight experience. Even more so with Mk II.
Use 5% of the money you save to do a Vomit Comet as well.

[jongoff]

Interesting announcement:
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/pages/News.shtml#/68/

Some of my thoughts:
http://selenianboondocks.com/2011/03/xcorula-aluminum-rocket-nozzle-announcement/

[jongoff]

I should elaborate.  It looks like as part of their Lynx development, they've gone with an all-aluminum nozzle, which got ULA interested in seeing if they could do something like that for an RL10-class LOX/LH2 engine. So the two companies teamed up to do some testing.

Very cool (especially if you're using LH2 as the fuel...)

~Jon

[mlorrey]

I should elaborate.  It looks like as part of their Lynx development, they've gone with an all-aluminum nozzle, which got ULA interested in seeing if they could do something like that for an RL10-class LOX/LH2 engine. So the two companies teamed up to do some testing.

Very cool (especially if you're using LH2 as the fuel...)

~Jon

This is where one starts having visions of Air Launched Sortie Vehicles and S-IV based SSTO designs.

[jongoff]

I should elaborate.  It looks like as part of their Lynx development, they've gone with an all-aluminum nozzle, which got ULA interested in seeing if they could do something like that for an RL10-class LOX/LH2 engine. So the two companies teamed up to do some testing.

Very cool (especially if you're using LH2 as the fuel...)

~Jon

This is where one starts having visions of Air Launched Sortie Vehicles and S-IV based SSTO designs.

One of the XCOR guys (Dan DeLong) was the guy who came up with an air-launched SSTO "SpacePlane" while at Teledyne Brown Engineering. An engine like this would allow you to do a scaled-down version, though I'm still partial to glide-forward TSTO designs.  With a SS2-mass glideforward TSTO RLV design using engines in the RL10 class for the first stage (and a mini version for the upper stage), you could probably put a Falcon 1e sized payload into orbit with only one expendable stage.  And if you wanted to make that upper stage a reusable one it could still probably get into the ~500lb to LEO range.

This isn't necessarily as off-topic as it sounds.  XCOR isn't necessarily opposed to air-launched vehicles, and it hasn't exactly tipped its hand on how it wants to attack orbit once Lynx is done.

~Jon

[mlorrey]

I should elaborate.  It looks like as part of their Lynx development, they've gone with an all-aluminum nozzle, which got ULA interested in seeing if they could do something like that for an RL10-class LOX/LH2 engine. So the two companies teamed up to do some testing.

Very cool (especially if you're using LH2 as the fuel...)

~Jon

This is where one starts having visions of Air Launched Sortie Vehicles and S-IV based SSTO designs.

One of the XCOR guys (Dan DeLong) was the guy who came up with an air-launched SSTO "SpacePlane" while at Teledyne Brown Engineering. An engine like this would allow you to do a scaled-down version, though I'm still partial to glide-forward TSTO designs.  With a SS2-mass glideforward TSTO RLV design using engines in the RL10 class for the first stage (and a mini version for the upper stage), you could probably put a Falcon 1e sized payload into orbit with only one expendable stage.  And if you wanted to make that upper stage a reusable one it could still probably get into the ~500lb to LEO range.

This isn't necessarily as off-topic as it sounds.  XCOR isn't necessarily opposed to air-launched vehicles, and it hasn't exactly tipped its hand on how it wants to attack orbit once Lynx is done.

~Jon

As I recall, one of the ALSV designs had nine RL-10 class engines, the one launched off the back of the 747 that had rockets in its tail.

[jongoff]

Here's an XCOR release about the work:

http://xcor.com/press-releases/2011/11-03-22_XCOR_and_ULA_demonstrate_rocket_engine_nozzle.html

March 22, 2011, Centennial, CO, and Mojave, CA, USA: United Launch Alliance (ULA) and XCOR Aerospace announced today their successful hot-fire demonstrations of a lighter-weight, lower-cost approach to liquid-fueled rocket-engine vacuum nozzles. The new nozzle technology, which uses aluminum alloys and innovative manufacturing techniques, is projected to be less costly and save hundreds of pounds of mass compared to nozzles in use today in typical large upper-stage rocket engine systems.

Under a 2010 joint risk-reduction program by XCOR and ULA, ULA facilitated an accelerated demonstration of the nozzle technology, which was developed in XCOR’s Lynx reusable, suborbital-vehicle technology program. ULA sought to determine the nozzle technology’s applicability to future expendable launch vehicle programs. Earlier in the same risk-reduction program, XCOR demonstrated the ability to pump liquid hydrogen (LH2) using cryogenic piston-pump technology it developed for the Lynx suborbital vehicle.

Based on the results of these successful technology demonstrations, ULA today announced a larger follow-on program with XCOR to develop a liquid oxygen (LOX)/LH2 engine.

Conceived as a lower-cost, risk-managed program compared to traditional engine development efforts, the multi-year project’s main objective is to produce a flight-ready LOX/LH2 upper-stage engine in the 25,000 to 30,000 lbf thrust class that costs significantly less to produce and is easier to operate and integrate than competing engine technologies. If successful, the effort will lead to significantly lower-cost and more-capable commercial and US government space flights delivered by ULA.

"ULA understands that we have to offer competitive prices to our government and commercial customers along with the outstanding and unmatched reliability they expect from us,” said Dr. George Sowers, vice president of business development and advanced programs at ULA. “By working with XCOR, we see the potential to develop engines that offer the performance and reliability our customers need at a more affordable price."

The companies structured their LOX/LH2 engine development program with multiple “go / no-go” decision points and performance milestones to ensure a cost-effective and risk-managed approach to this challenging effort. As demonstrated during prior ULA and XCOR joint engagements, XCOR’s small-company environment facilitates rapid turnaround for build and test cycles that drive innovative learning, while ULA’s small company project management approach ensures their needs are met but does not stifle the creative process or saddle XCOR with excessive paperwork burdens typical of large government contracts. In addition, ULA is helping to bolster the Tier 2 and Tier 3 aerospace-industrial supply chain in the United States, which is critical to ensuring the United States aerospace sector remains competitive in the global marketplace.

“This announcement validates XCOR’s business mantra of ‘stay focused on propulsion, Lynx and the customer’ and ULA is a great customer,” said Andrew Nelson, Chief Operating Officer at XCOR. “And when you have innovative, safe, low-cost and fully reusable technologies that fly multiple times a day, those technologies will find other buyers, such as ULA. Whether it is non-toxic thrusters, fully reusable main-engine propulsion, cryogenic flight-weight piston pumps, or non-flammable cryogenically compatible composite tanks and structures – the future looks bright for XCOR.”

The demonstrations announced today are from integrated engine/nozzle test firings with XCOR’s Lynx 5K18 LOX/kerosene engine. The engine/nozzle combination demonstrates the ability of the aluminum nozzle to withstand the high temperatures of rocket-engine exhaust over numerous tests, with no discernable degradation of the material properties of the alloys. The tests validated the design, materials and manufacturing processes used in the nozzle, and laid a foundation for scaling the design to EELV-sized engines. The results also demonstrate the reusability of the engine and nozzle combination which is essential for low-cost, daily suborbital flights by the Lynx and other vehicles.

“We are honored to work with the great team of individuals at ULA, a Tier 1 aerospace supplier,” said Jeff Greason, XCOR CEO. “The critical engine technology we’re developing for ULA may one day launch satellites, capsules and space stations for government and commercial customers. Customers such as the US Air Force, NASA, the National Reconnaissance Office, Boeing and Bigelow Aerospace all stand to benefit from this partnership. For a rocket engineer, there is nothing more exciting than firing a new engine for the first time. We can’t wait for the day when we first fire the new hydrogen engine for ULA.”


# # # # #
United Launch Alliance - 50-50 joint venture owned by Lockheed Martin and The Boeing Company—is the nation’s rocket company, bringing together two of the launch industry’s most experienced and successful teams – Atlas and Delta. ULA provides reliable, cost-efficient space launch services for the Department of Defense, NASA, the National Reconnaissance Office and other commercial organizations. ULA program management, engineering, test and mission support functions are headquartered in Denver, Colo. Manufacturing, assembly and integration operations are located at Decatur, Ala. and Harlingen, Tex. Launch operations are located at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. For more information on the ULA joint venture, visit the ULA website at www.ulalaunch.com.

XCOR Aerospace is located in Mojave, California. The company is in the business of developing and producing safe, reliable and reusable rocket powered vehicles, propulsion systems, advanced non-flammable composites and other enabling technologies. XCOR is currently working with aerospace prime contractors and government customers on major propulsion systems, and concurrently building the Lynx, a piloted, two-seat, fully reusable, liquid rocket-powered vehicle that takes off and lands horizontally. The Lynx production models (designated Lynx Mark II) are designed to be robust, multi-commercial mission vehicles capable of flying to 100+ km in altitude up to four times per day and are being offered on a wet lease basis. (www.xcor.com)

[butters]

So in other words, ULA wants to reduce their dependence on PWR. Sounds like a good idea to me.

[manboy]

I should elaborate.  It looks like as part of their Lynx development, they've gone with an all-aluminum nozzle, which got ULA interested in seeing if they could do something like that for an RL10-class LOX/LH2 engine. So the two companies teamed up to do some testing.

Very cool (especially if you're using LH2 as the fuel...)

~Jon

This is where one starts having visions of Air Launched Sortie Vehicles and S-IV based SSTO designs.

This isn't necessarily as off-topic as it sounds.  XCOR isn't necessarily opposed to air-launched vehicles, and it hasn't exactly tipped its hand on how it wants to attack orbit once Lynx is done.

Old video but it talks about how they might do it.

[jongoff]

I should elaborate.  It looks like as part of their Lynx development, they've gone with an all-aluminum nozzle, which got ULA interested in seeing if they could do something like that for an RL10-class LOX/LH2 engine. So the two companies teamed up to do some testing.

Very cool (especially if you're using LH2 as the fuel...)

~Jon

This is where one starts having visions of Air Launched Sortie Vehicles and S-IV based SSTO designs.

This isn't necessarily as off-topic as it sounds.  XCOR isn't necessarily opposed to air-launched vehicles, and it hasn't exactly tipped its hand on how it wants to attack orbit once Lynx is done.

Old video but it talks about how they might do it.

It'll be interesting to see if Jeff has anything to add at Space Access this year.

~Jon

[simonbp]

So, presumably, the "larger LH2/LOX" engine they are talking about is NGE, the RL-10 replacement that ULA has be talking about for the past couple years?

[RocketEconomist327]

Here's an XCOR release about the work:

http://xcor.com/press-releases/2011/11-03-22_XCOR_and_ULA_demonstrate_rocket_engine_nozzle.html

March 22, 2011, Centennial, CO, and Mojave, CA, USA: United Launch Alliance (ULA) and XCOR Aerospace announced today their successful hot-fire demonstrations of a lighter-weight, lower-cost approach to liquid-fueled rocket-engine vacuum nozzles. The new nozzle technology, which uses aluminum alloys and innovative manufacturing techniques, is projected to be less costly and save hundreds of pounds of mass compared to nozzles in use today in typical large upper-stage rocket engine systems.

Under a 2010 joint risk-reduction program by XCOR and ULA, ULA facilitated an accelerated demonstration of the nozzle technology, which was developed in XCOR’s Lynx reusable, suborbital-vehicle technology program. ULA sought to determine the nozzle technology’s applicability to future expendable launch vehicle programs. Earlier in the same risk-reduction program, XCOR demonstrated the ability to pump liquid hydrogen (LH2) using cryogenic piston-pump technology it developed for the Lynx suborbital vehicle.

Based on the results of these successful technology demonstrations, ULA today announced a larger follow-on program with XCOR to develop a liquid oxygen (LOX)/LH2 engine.

Conceived as a lower-cost, risk-managed program compared to traditional engine development efforts, the multi-year project’s main objective is to produce a flight-ready LOX/LH2 upper-stage engine in the 25,000 to 30,000 lbf thrust class that costs significantly less to produce and is easier to operate and integrate than competing engine technologies. If successful, the effort will lead to significantly lower-cost and more-capable commercial and US government space flights delivered by ULA.

"ULA understands that we have to offer competitive prices to our government and commercial customers along with the outstanding and unmatched reliability they expect from us,” said Dr. George Sowers, vice president of business development and advanced programs at ULA. “By working with XCOR, we see the potential to develop engines that offer the performance and reliability our customers need at a more affordable price."

The companies structured their LOX/LH2 engine development program with multiple “go / no-go” decision points and performance milestones to ensure a cost-effective and risk-managed approach to this challenging effort. As demonstrated during prior ULA and XCOR joint engagements, XCOR’s small-company environment facilitates rapid turnaround for build and test cycles that drive innovative learning, while ULA’s small company project management approach ensures their needs are met but does not stifle the creative process or saddle XCOR with excessive paperwork burdens typical of large government contracts. In addition, ULA is helping to bolster the Tier 2 and Tier 3 aerospace-industrial supply chain in the United States, which is critical to ensuring the United States aerospace sector remains competitive in the global marketplace.

“This announcement validates XCOR’s business mantra of ‘stay focused on propulsion, Lynx and the customer’ and ULA is a great customer,” said Andrew Nelson, Chief Operating Officer at XCOR. “And when you have innovative, safe, low-cost and fully reusable technologies that fly multiple times a day, those technologies will find other buyers, such as ULA. Whether it is non-toxic thrusters, fully reusable main-engine propulsion, cryogenic flight-weight piston pumps, or non-flammable cryogenically compatible composite tanks and structures – the future looks bright for XCOR.”

The demonstrations announced today are from integrated engine/nozzle test firings with XCOR’s Lynx 5K18 LOX/kerosene engine. The engine/nozzle combination demonstrates the ability of the aluminum nozzle to withstand the high temperatures of rocket-engine exhaust over numerous tests, with no discernable degradation of the material properties of the alloys. The tests validated the design, materials and manufacturing processes used in the nozzle, and laid a foundation for scaling the design to EELV-sized engines. The results also demonstrate the reusability of the engine and nozzle combination which is essential for low-cost, daily suborbital flights by the Lynx and other vehicles.

“We are honored to work with the great team of individuals at ULA, a Tier 1 aerospace supplier,” said Jeff Greason, XCOR CEO. “The critical engine technology we’re developing for ULA may one day launch satellites, capsules and space stations for government and commercial customers. Customers such as the US Air Force, NASA, the National Reconnaissance Office, Boeing and Bigelow Aerospace all stand to benefit from this partnership. For a rocket engineer, there is nothing more exciting than firing a new engine for the first time. We can’t wait for the day when we first fire the new hydrogen engine for ULA.”


# # # # #
United Launch Alliance - 50-50 joint venture owned by Lockheed Martin and The Boeing Company—is the nation’s rocket company, bringing together two of the launch industry’s most experienced and successful teams – Atlas and Delta. ULA provides reliable, cost-efficient space launch services for the Department of Defense, NASA, the National Reconnaissance Office and other commercial organizations. ULA program management, engineering, test and mission support functions are headquartered in Denver, Colo. Manufacturing, assembly and integration operations are located at Decatur, Ala. and Harlingen, Tex. Launch operations are located at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. For more information on the ULA joint venture, visit the ULA website at www.ulalaunch.com.

XCOR Aerospace is located in Mojave, California. The company is in the business of developing and producing safe, reliable and reusable rocket powered vehicles, propulsion systems, advanced non-flammable composites and other enabling technologies. XCOR is currently working with aerospace prime contractors and government customers on major propulsion systems, and concurrently building the Lynx, a piloted, two-seat, fully reusable, liquid rocket-powered vehicle that takes off and lands horizontally. The Lynx production models (designated Lynx Mark II) are designed to be robust, multi-commercial mission vehicles capable of flying to 100+ km in altitude up to four times per day and are being offered on a wet lease basis. (www.xcor.com)

Kudos to ULA helping to fund this.  This is the first time in a long time I have been able to smile with genuine satisfaction when I mentioned ULA.

Great work.

Respectfully,
RocketEconomist327

[crab nebula2]

XCOR's announcement seems to imply they will use a piston pump in their new engine.  Does anybody have an idea what the engine cycle will be like? I believe the RL10 is an expander cycle where the heated hydrogen gas is used to drive the turbo pumps in a closed cycle. What will XCOR use to drive their piston pump?

[simonbp]

Just a standard gas generator/turbine? A piston pump with a crankshaft allows you to drive it with a rotary shaft, so it shouldn't make much difference.