Boeing Unveils Air-Launched Space-Access Concept

[Aeroman]

Article in Aviation weekly online today (I think).  I could not find it anywhere on this site so Mods if I have it in the wrong place please let me know.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_05_21_2012_p25-458597.xml&p=1


Aeroman

[Wyvern]

It's good to see one of the big aerospace companies innovating and look at new ways for cheap space access.

I hope this business succeeds.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Even though the quoted price would be cheaper price/kg than secondary payload pricing on EELVs it would be equal or more than secondary pricing on F9. So from a business standpoint it is only marginal. Now if the price was $150,000 per flight you would have something that could take over the small sat secondaries market.

[Danderman]

"Piece by piece, parts of the puzzle that may conceivably drive down costs to as low as $300,000 per launch, are falling into place, according to hypersonic researchers at Boeing. Building on these pieces, the company has unveiled a small launch vehicle (SLV) concept aimed at the smallsat market, and it could be in service as early as 2020. "

"Unlike many previous ideas for air-breathing, multi-stage small launch systems, the SLV comprises elements that, in some cases, are already flying. Including the Scaled Composites-designed WhiteKnightTwo (WK2) carrier aircraft that would air-launch the three-stage vehicle, virtually every technology required for the SLV is therefore either developed or at a high-technology readiness level, says Kevin Bowcutt, Boeing's chief hypersonics scientist. Sized initially to carry payloads up to 100 lb., the SLV would employ two reusable air-breathing stages and a third stage made up of an expendable or reusable rocket. "

"The delta-winged first stage borrows several design features of the XB-70 supersonic bomber, including a raised forward fuselage, two-dimensional mixed-compression wedge inlets and compression lift. Boeing's study evaluated several propulsion options for the first stage, which is designed to reach a staging Mach number of 4.5 before releasing the second stage. Options include the Atrex air-turbo ramjet with expander cycle, an experimental precooled engine under development by the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency that works as both a turbojet and ramjet. "

"The second stage is a 37-ft.-long, hypersonic waverider design with “an inward-turning inlet that feeds a circular combustor scramjet,” says Bowcutt."

 

This sounds like either a general FUD attempt, although I don't know who the target is, or else Boeing is scrambling for more study money. Boeing has the $$ to pull this off, but if they don't get the study money, or if the FUD is no longer necessary, this concept will disappear, like Boeing's Commercial Space Module of 10 years ago that was aimed at killing the SpaceHAB Enterprise module.

Boeing just doesn't get it when it comes to commercial space.  If there is a commercial competitor that Boeing is trying to kill, this won't do it. And if Boeing wants study money, coming out in public like this won't help them get a government contract for it.

[Lurker Steve]

How much does the typical Pegasus launch cost ?

They really aren't describing anything much different, other than a semi-reusable vehicle. The third stage is still expendable.

[jongoff]

Article in Aviation weekly online today (I think).  I could not find it anywhere on this site so Mods if I have it in the wrong place please let me know.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_05_21_2012_p25-458597.xml&p=1

Is this what they proposed for the DARPA ALASA program, or is this a separate concept?

~Jon

[simonbp]

Mmm, Mini-Valkyrie... Been a long time since anyone built a real waverider...

Jon, I wonder if this is actually a descendant of what they were planning for the DARPA FALCON program, as it seems to fit better into that than something you'd design from scratch for a space-launch system.

Also IIRC, that puts us up to three space vehicles carried by WK2: SS2, Dreamchaser (drop tests), and Boeing SLV.

[Robotbeat]

Dedicated launch is very important

[Danderman]

It used to be that when programs needed to invoke magic to make them work, slush hydrogen or aerospike engines were invoked.  Now, its a "waverider".

[simonbp]

Waveriding ain't magic, but it sure is pretty:

[Lee Jay]

Quote from memory (essence is correct):

"Some completely insane people think it's a good idea to hang a rocket under a wing."  -- Dr. Antonio Elias

When he said it, I thought he was dissing Stratolaunch.  Then it hit me...

[jongoff]

So let me get this straight...you have a subsonic jet launch a supersonic jet, which launches a hypersonic waverider, which launches an expendable rocket stage...At least the subsonic jet exists, but I'm scratching my head at how they can possibly develop this within the $80-150M budget ALASA had.

Interestingly enough I had heard that Boeing was one of the ALASA winners. I'm just surprised if this was their winning bid. If so, I definitely underestimated their creativity. I was expecting something boring.

~Jon

[edkyle99]

Why don't they just put Blackstar back into service? 



 - Ed Kyle

[simonbp]

So let me get this straight...you have a subsonic jet launch a supersonic jet, which launches a hypersonic waverider, which launches an expendable rocket stage...

I think it's just 3-stage, so WK2 drops the hypersonic vehicle, which then launches the rocket upper stage. It would see easier to have a hypersonic vehicle that can take off from the ground...

[MikeAtkinson]

No, it is 4 stages including WK2

WhiteKnightTwo (WK2) carrier aircraft that would air-launch the three-stage vehicle

[XP67_Moonbat]

Seeing as we haven't seen any pictures of this beast yet, might I offer this as a possible place to start guessing on Boeing's concept? (Yes, I know they're ASTROX concepts)

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22610.0

[mrmandias]

Even though the quoted price would be cheaper price/kg than secondary payload pricing on EELVs it would be equal or more than secondary pricing on F9. So from a business standpoint it is only marginal. Now if the price was $150,000 per flight you would have something that could take over the small sat secondaries market.

The ability to pick an inclination and a time precisely would make airlaunch very attractive, plus not having to wait on integration and primary f9 customers.

This is all extremely theoretical, of course, but if you take what they're saying seriously, it would be competitive.

[kkattula]

No, it is 4 stages including WK2

WhiteKnightTwo (WK2) carrier aircraft that would air-launch the three-stage vehicle

4 stages to launch 4 x P-POD?  Total mass 26kg. (12 x 1.33kg CU + 4 x 2.5kg P-POD)

Including a Mach 4.5 turbo-ramjet and a Mach 10 scramjet?

How much is a Lynx Mk3 with a 300kg expendable rocket on top expected to put in orbit? 10 or 20 kg? Enough for 2 or 3 P-PODs, yet only 2 stages and probably less than half the $300K price.


This story reads like a scramjet designer scrambling to find a use for one.

[jongoff]

No, it is 4 stages including WK2

WhiteKnightTwo (WK2) carrier aircraft that would air-launch the three-stage vehicle

4 stages to launch 4 x P-POD?  Total mass 26kg. (12 x 1.33kg CU + 4 x 2.5kg P-POD)

Including a Mach 4.5 turbo-ramjet and a Mach 10 scramjet?

How much is a Lynx Mk3 with a 300kg expendable rocket on top expected to put in orbit? 10 or 20 kg? Enough for 2 or 3 P-PODs, yet only 2 stages and probably less than half the $300K price.


This story reads like a scramjet designer scrambling to find a use for one.

XCOR was looking at putting ~15kg into LEO (which might be enough for 1 or maybe 2 PPODs) into orbit for ~$500k. However, that was the full-wrap commercial price, not the marginal cost.

~Jon

[kkattula]

XCOR was looking at putting ~15kg into LEO (which might be enough for 1 or maybe 2 PPODs) into orbit for ~$500k. However, that was the full-wrap commercial price, not the marginal cost.

~Jon

That much?  I suppose it makes sense to offer a dedicated launch for only a little less than a secondary ride. They want to make a healthy profit.

IIRC, there are also 5 CU inline P-PODs which might be a good fit.

[QuantumG]

XCOR was looking at putting ~15kg into LEO (which might be enough for 1 or maybe 2 PPODs) into orbit for ~$500k. However, that was the full-wrap commercial price, not the marginal cost.

Wow, that's cheap! Last I heard people were still talking about dedicated cubesat launches for $1M.

[Danderman]

XCOR was looking at putting ~15kg into LEO (which might be enough for 1 or maybe 2 PPODs) into orbit for ~$500k. However, that was the full-wrap commercial price, not the marginal cost.

Wow, that's cheap! Last I heard people were still talking about dedicated cubesat launches for $1M.

Boeing can't change a tire on a military plane for less than $1 million, so this $300,000 launch number is likely to be a pipe dream.

BTW, has anyone ever recovered a "waverider" after a mission for re-use, and what were the costs involved?

[Lars_J]

Boeing can't change a tire on a military plane for less than $1 million, so this $300,000 launch number is likely to be a pipe dream.

Yep, so true.

And as Jon noted, it seems dubious that a 3 or 4 stage LV (depending on how you count) - each one quite different - will actually lower costs.

[Danderman]

XCOR was looking at putting ~15kg into LEO (which might be enough for 1 or maybe 2 PPODs) into orbit for ~$500k. However, that was the full-wrap commercial price, not the marginal cost.

Wow, that's cheap! Last I heard people were still talking about dedicated cubesat launches for $1M.

It should be noted that none of the people talking about dedicated CubeSAT launches for $1 million have made much progress in that direction.

Talk is cheap.

[QuantumG]

It should be noted that none of the people talking about dedicated CubeSAT launches for $1 million have made much progress in that direction.

Talk is cheap.

I'm pretty sure Tim Pickens could build you one in a year if the DoD didn't keep turning off his funding.

[jongoff]

XCOR was looking at putting ~15kg into LEO (which might be enough for 1 or maybe 2 PPODs) into orbit for ~$500k. However, that was the full-wrap commercial price, not the marginal cost.

Wow, that's cheap! Last I heard people were still talking about dedicated cubesat launches for $1M.

Maybe it was $750k. They don't give out numbers for that service as often cause it's still a while off.

~Jon

[jongoff]

It should be noted that none of the people talking about dedicated CubeSAT launches for $1 million have made much progress in that direction.

Talk is cheap.

I'm pretty sure Tim Pickens could build you one in a year if the DoD didn't keep turning off his funding.

Unfortunately Tim only got that funding because he teamed up with a company that has a knack for getting big earmarks from Senator Shelby (the fact that their main lobbyist used to run Shelby's campaigns I'm sure has nothing to do with the $50-60M in earmarked contracts this other company has landed from him). They skimmed most of the money off the top for "systems engineering", and left Tim with a tiny fraction of the money to actually build something. Unfortunately when Dynetics bought them, it shut off the gravy train, because Dynetics didn't want to use up its political capital to keep the earmarks flowing.

While I think Tim's idea had merit, merit had little to do with why it got funded in the first place or why it stopped getting funded at some point (no idea if they ever got that $$-hose turned back on or not).

But that's getting way off-topic.

~Jon

[jongoff]

XCOR was looking at putting ~15kg into LEO (which might be enough for 1 or maybe 2 PPODs) into orbit for ~$500k. However, that was the full-wrap commercial price, not the marginal cost.

Wow, that's cheap! Last I heard people were still talking about dedicated cubesat launches for $1M.

It should be noted that none of the people talking about dedicated CubeSAT launches for $1 million have made much progress in that direction.

Talk is cheap.

Yeah, raising money for rocket companies is a lot harder than talking about them. Most of the companies who've announced intentions in this area were never able to get much more than seed funding.

~Jon

[XP67_Moonbat]

Anyone know what this beast looks like yet?

[Danderman]

XCOR was looking at putting ~15kg into LEO (which might be enough for 1 or maybe 2 PPODs) into orbit for ~$500k. However, that was the full-wrap commercial price, not the marginal cost.

Wow, that's cheap! Last I heard people were still talking about dedicated cubesat launches for $1M.

It should be noted that none of the people talking about dedicated CubeSAT launches for $1 million have made much progress in that direction.

Talk is cheap.

Yeah, raising money for rocket companies is a lot harder than talking about them. Most of the companies who've announced intentions in this area were never able to get much more than seed funding.

~Jon

Let me play Bob Truax here and suggest that a tiny LV has almost all of the disadvantages of a big one, and few advantages. I guess not having to build a big building to work on the rocket is one.

But the killer is that the margins are pretty small. If you are trying to orbit 20 kg, and you are just a fraction off on your prop margins, you don't make orbit.

[Danderman]

Even though the quoted price would be cheaper price/kg than secondary payload pricing on EELVs it would be equal or more than secondary pricing on F9.

I don't know if anyone considers "SpaceX pricing" to be real, due to several factors.

[mrmandias]

Even though the quoted price would be cheaper price/kg than secondary payload pricing on EELVs it would be equal or more than secondary pricing on F9.

I don't know if anyone considers "SpaceX pricing" to be real, due to several factors.

A point, but I don't reckon these Boeing numbers are real either.  So if we're going to compare, we might as well compare guesses to guesses.

[RanulfC]

Anyone know what this beast looks like yet?

They now have a picture up:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_05_21_2012_p25-458597.xml&p=1

WK-2 with mini-Valk hanging underneath with an X-43ish looking delta wing stuck to it's nose.

Randy

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

With a standpoint of the secondary and small sat launch services market, for EELV's to carry any secondaries they will have to discount the price for them to be competitive to other providers. A "price war" could ensue for the secondaries market.

As for dedicated launch capability as being a value added enabling charging a higher price, only the government seems to be interested in this feature and they represent much less than 50% of the total small sat market. In order to reach 100 to 150 total launches a year, nearly the complete small sat launches that are launched globally would have to be launched on this one vehicle (I beleive the current total is closer to 50 a year or less). If they had half the current market price then I could see this happening but not with this stated price.

[Hauerg]

Anyone know what this beast looks like yet?

They now have a picture up:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_05_21_2012_p25-458597.xml&p=1

WK-2 with mini-Valk hanging underneath with an X-43ish looking delta wing stuck to it's nose.

Randy

That looks ... I don't know how to say this.... ahem... totally nuts?

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Yeah, a single fin tail for the 2nd stage would not work because the mounting device to keep the 2nd stage from breaking off during WK2 flight would need to extend significantly onto the stage to hold it in place.

[Danderman]

Anyone know what this beast looks like yet?

They now have a picture up:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_05_21_2012_p25-458597.xml&p=1

WK-2 with mini-Valk hanging underneath with an X-43ish looking delta wing stuck to it's nose.

Randy

That is not going to be cheap to develop or fly.

[Zed_Noir]

Heck, maybe they should just hang a clone of the Midgeman ICBM underneath the WK2 for use as a small LV. 

[rklaehn]

Anyone know what this beast looks like yet?

They now have a picture up:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_05_21_2012_p25-458597.xml&p=1

WK-2 with mini-Valk hanging underneath with an X-43ish looking delta wing stuck to it's nose.

Randy

That has got to be the most ridiculous contraption I have ever seen.

[RanulfC]

Anyone know what this beast looks like yet?

They now have a picture up:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_05_21_2012_p25-458597.xml&p=1

WK-2 with mini-Valk hanging underneath with an X-43ish looking delta wing stuck to it's nose.

That looks ... I don't know how to say this.... ahem... totally nuts?

Well maybe not "totally"... Mostly though... (Kinda like "Mostly Dead" but I digress )

Yeah, a single fin tail for the 2nd stage would not work because the mounting device to keep the 2nd stage from breaking off during WK2 flight would need to extend significantly onto the stage to hold it in place.

Uhm which actually ignores the "point" in that the second stage doesn't "need" or "want" delta wings nor a large vertical tail! It starts at Mach 4.5 and goes to Mach-10 and is a "wave-rider" or lifting body vehicle so you don't want any "extra" bits that have to be activily cooled hanging out in the "breeze" there! And then there is the question of what reason (other than wanting to put the word "scramjet" into the article 'cause it's "cool" you know ) would you have to keep airbreathing after you hit Mach-4.5 in the first place? The cited engine types (ATREX Deep-Cooled Air-Turbo-Ramjet, Air-Turbo-Rocket, etc) are all pretty nominally "good" up to around Mach-6 or better why stay down in the "soup" with a draggy air-breathing engine beyond that? Especially with a "small" launhc vehicle?

It's a "nice" picture but I suspect a ton of "artistic license" rather than anything official in it.

That is not going to be cheap to develop or fly.

I highly suspect we're looking at a "pre-DARPA" pitch or some other effort to get DoD funding for scramjet development really. I don't see this thing as being "cost-effective" given the stated design. Scramjets will be ok when they get the bugs worked out, but I don't see how they expect to get anything from such a small launcher with so much development effort and flight testing needed to get it running.

Randy

[RanulfC]

Anyone know what this beast looks like yet?

They now have a picture up:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_05_21_2012_p25-458597.xml&p=1

WK-2 with mini-Valk hanging underneath with an X-43ish looking delta wing stuck to it's nose.

Randy

That has got to be the most ridiculous contraption I have ever seen.

Ohhhh, a challenge! I wonder if I can find that article on the "Orbital Bi-Plane" concept... The one where the crew feeds pieces of the vehicle into the rocket exhaust to increase the mass-flow while decreasing the vehicle weight....

Randy

[jongoff]

Let me play Bob Truax here and suggest that a tiny LV has almost all of the disadvantages of a big one, and few advantages. I guess not having to build a big building to work on the rocket is one.

There's a whole ton of additional counterarguments to that logic, but it's not as easily summed up in pithy one-liners.

But the killer is that the margins are pretty small. If you are trying to orbit 20 kg, and you are just a fraction off on your prop margins, you don't make orbit.

I'm not sure I can name even one company trying to build a nano/microsat launch vehicle that has both a) raised enough money to have a chance to implement things, and b) then run into insurmountable technical challenges that prevented them from achieving their goal. I've known a whole bunch of companies who've indicated they wanted to go after this market, and then failed miserably at getting even halfway through "a", or are still actively trying to work their way up to "a".

Maybe I'm misremembering a bunch of examples?

~Jon

[jongoff]

Even though the quoted price would be cheaper price/kg than secondary payload pricing on EELVs it would be equal or more than secondary pricing on F9.

I don't know if anyone considers "SpaceX pricing" to be real, due to several factors.

A point, but I don't reckon these Boeing numbers are real either.  So if we're going to compare, we might as well compare guesses to guesses.

And as I pointed out earlier, it's quite likely that the Boeing price is the *marginal cost* per flight, while the SpaceX prices are full-wrap *prices* for a bare-bones launch. This is the difference behind the famous "does the shuttle cost $100M per launch or $1.5B?" question.

~Jon

[Jason1701]

Even though the quoted price would be cheaper price/kg than secondary payload pricing on EELVs it would be equal or more than secondary pricing on F9.

I don't know if anyone considers "SpaceX pricing" to be real, due to several factors.

A point, but I don't reckon these Boeing numbers are real either.  So if we're going to compare, we might as well compare guesses to guesses.

And as I pointed out earlier, it's quite likely that the Boeing price is the *marginal cost* per flight, while the SpaceX prices are full-wrap *prices* for a bare-bones launch. This is the difference behind the famous "does the shuttle cost $100M per launch or $1.5B?" question.

~Jon

It's also likely that the costs for this ultra-advanced system will balloon several orders of magnitude, while SpaceX's will only increase a bit.

[AS-503]

Has any one else noticed Geatano Marano's "contribution" to the comments section of the original news article?

[RanulfC]

Has any one else noticed Geatano Marano's "contribution" to the comments section of the original news article?

I"ve noted he hasn't (yet) started claiming that he thought of the idea first

Randy

[XP67_Moonbat]

On the subject of feeding parts of your ship to the engine, YGBSM!

[MP99]

Anyone know what this beast looks like yet?

They now have a picture up:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_05_21_2012_p25-458597.xml&p=1

WK-2 with mini-Valk hanging underneath with an X-43ish looking delta wing stuck to it's nose.

That has got to be the most ridiculous contraption I have ever seen.

Ooh - a challenge. How about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_airship?? A 7.8km/s airship?? 

cheers, Martin

[RanulfC]

Ok, update article on the concept with some "better" pictures though I would recomend taking them with a grain of salt still

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:a68cb417-3364-4fbf-a9dd-4feda680ec9c&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%253aa68cb417-3364-4fbf-a9dd-4feda680ec9cPost%253af6f267a4-b412-44cc-a2a0-5258308c847e

Randy

[Chilly]

I'm just an airline puke, not an engineer. But this looks wackadoodle.

This has to be some kind of technology-investigation program...right? No way they're seriously expecting anyone to believe it'll work for cheap nanosat launches...right?

If it's from Boeing, they surely must know what they're talking about and wouldn't put out anything half-cocked...

...and then I remember the Sonic Cruiser.

[docmordrid]

Frankenrocket?

[RanulfC]

I just don't see the need for the "complexity" of two seperate air-breathing systems, (one of which isn't proven "operationally" yet) AND a rocket stage.

Mind you I LIKE both Air-Launch, and Air-Breathing RLV concepts but I'm sitting here looking at an article entitled "Low Cost Small Satellite Delivery System" from 2002;
https://wiki.umn.edu/pub/AEM_Air_Launch_Team/LaunchTrajectoryDesign/reference_number_3.pdf

That shows you could put almost 3-times the payload into orbit using a bone-yard F-4E, and a 2/3rds sized "Pegasus-XL" without all the fuss.
(And as an FYI the article also compares a T-38 with a 1/3rd size Pegasus, and an F-5F with a 1/2 size LV, with 122lb, and 36lb to LEO payloads respectivly)
IIRC the author had a little to do with RASCAL at one point and this was a "civilian-ized" take off on that concept.

And all that without even using a very efficent engine or cutting edge launch platform.

For that matter I found this report "An Affordable Micro Satellite
Launch Concept in JAPAN" from 2008 where they suggest using a C-17 and the method currently used to launch target vehicles for ABM testing, or an F-15 with payloads of 330lb to 110lb which would probably cost even less.
http://www.responsivespace.com/Papers/RS6/SESSIONS/SESSION%20V/5004_MATSUDA/5004P.pdf

or even a C-130, (Now there's an idea )
http://www.sei.aero/eng/papers/uploads/archive/SSC11-II-5_present.pdf

I just don't see any way there could be a market for this considering how much work (and money) has to be done to make it available.

Chilly may be right this may just be a pitch for pushing along scramjet development with a "civilian" coat of paint.

Randy

[Danderman]

I'm just an airline puke, not an engineer. But this looks wackadoodle.

This has to be some kind of technology-investigation program...right? No way they're seriously expecting anyone to believe it'll work for cheap nanosat launches...right?

If it's from Boeing, they surely must know what they're talking about and wouldn't put out anything half-cocked...

...and then I remember the Sonic Cruiser.

Don't forget their Crossbow AirLaunch!

[Chilly]

Chilly may be right this may just be a pitch for pushing along scramjet development with a "civilian" coat of paint.

Randy

It's all part of an elaborate marketing plan for my novels. Because I have that kind of juice with Boeing.

[Chilly]

Don't forget their Crossbow AirLaunch!

[/quote]

Actually I wasn't aware of that one, just Googled it. Heck, it looks less goofy just because Orbital's done it already - but it sure seems safer to drop the thing than launch it off your back. The flight crew would need some big brass ones for that trip.
Not to mention they actually produced drag polars and other math-y looking things. So it *must* be serious...

[Danderman]

The point here is that when it comes to space, Boeing likes to throw out concepts in search of government funding. I don't know if any of these concepts ever went anywhere.

When Boeing is serious, they push NASA to start a program, and then bid for that program. These are concepts with no program.

The success of SpaceX should be a warning that the days of the aerodinosaurs may be ending. Or maybe we are simply going to see new aerodinosaurs.

[Ronsmytheiii]

Heck, maybe they should just hang a clone of the Midgeman ICBM underneath the WK2 for use as a small LV. 

And how about calling it Pegasus....

[RanulfC]

Heck, maybe they should just hang a clone of the Midgeman ICBM underneath the WK2 for use as a small LV. 

And how about calling it Pegasus....

Nahhhh, that's been taken beside look at the size of it... How about Pegasaurus!

Randy

[Ben the Space Brit]

To my untrained eye, it looks like the underslung payload on the WK2 is actually a two-stage vehicle - each delta marks a different stage.  What makes this interesting is that Boeing is thus proposing a fly-back boost stage and fly-back primary spacecraft.  That puts them technologically ahead of Stratolaunch, IMHO at least.

Although the wings and tail will doubtless eat up the payload on the mission vehicle, the wings might offset that a little by allowing aerodynamic forces to carry some of the mass during the early flight phase.

[RanulfC]

To my untrained eye, it looks like the underslung payload on the WK2 is actually a two-stage vehicle - each delta marks a different stage.  What makes this interesting is that Boeing is thus proposing a fly-back boost stage and fly-back primary spacecraft.  That puts them technologically ahead of Stratolaunch, IMHO at least.

Although the wings and tail will doubtless eat up the payload on the mission vehicle, the wings might offset that a little by allowing aerodynamic forces to carry some of the mass during the early flight phase.

Three-stage actually with the third being an expendable vehicle. See the second cited article for a clearer view but the third stage is "nested" into the top of the second stage. Boeing has "plans" for a type of reusable thrid stage at some "future" point but right now they are still base-lining an expendable.

Randy

[Zed_Noir]

Heck, maybe they should just hang a clone of the Midgeman ICBM underneath the WK2 for use as a small LV. 

And how about calling it Pegasus....

At about 14 tonnes, the Midgetman can be carry by the WK2. Unlike the Pegasus XL, which is both too heavy and too big. Maybe Mini Pegasus is more appropriate. Lockheed Martin probably want to use another name. 

[Jackspace]

Persinaly, I think there trying to copy Strato Launch, though on a smaller scale.

[Ronsmytheiii]

Edit: Lockheed, Boeing, and Northrop all won contracts

http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=38391

[Danderman]

How is this different from the RASCAL program?

[HMXHMX]

How is this different from the RASCAL program?

A wit might answer: "it's not."

On the other hand, RASCAL's Program Manager demanded a hypersonic launch aircraft on the cheap, while ALASA contractors are all working on subsonic launch aircraft.  Alone that makes a big difference.

[vulture4]

as ALSET suggests, the velocity of the launch aircraft does not buy much because in most cases the most efficient initial course for the rocket stage is a near-vertical climb and it accelerates quickly. The main contribution of the aircraft is altitude, and the additional altitude capability of a supersonic carrier is balanced by its reduced load capacity and higher cost, so a large subsonic launch aircraft with high altitude capability is optimal.

That said, the SR-71 would still have made a capable launch platform; big, fast, and high.

http://www.sei.aero/eng/papers/uploads/archive/SSC11-II-5_present.pdf

[john smith 19]

That said, the SR-71 would still have made a capable launch platform; big, fast, and high.

http://www.sei.aero/eng/papers/uploads/archive/SSC11-II-5_present.pdf

The report you linked to makes no reference to the ability of using an SR71, which would be about 5000lb. While big in its day for a *reconnaissance* mission payload it's fairly small in LV terms. The XB70 rated at 50 000  lb would have been much more useful as would the Thunderchief (internal weapons bay, M2 speed). There might even be enough examples left to canabalise to get a flying vehicle.

This vehicle is *complex*. It's a 4 stage vehicle (including the aircraft) to deliver not much to LEO. Any comments about most of the elements are at an advanced level of technology sidesteps the M4-M10 SC Ram jet 

I know this is DARPA but IMHO just lowering the per Kg cost of payload to LEO is *the* major challenge and calls for a very clear understanding of what drives those launch costs and how to combat them. This
might result in a fairly pedestrian design implemented in a very clever way.

This calls for *very* high quality engineering.

As for air launch the key benefits seem to be reduction of the multi 1000 page launch commit criteria and a larger expansion ratio nozzle.

[Ronsmytheiii]

That said, the SR-71 would still have made a capable launch platform; big, fast, and high.

http://www.sei.aero/eng/papers/uploads/archive/SSC11-II-5_present.pdf

THat was tried before

[john smith 19]

That said, the SR-71 would still have made a capable launch platform; big, fast, and high.

http://www.sei.aero/eng/papers/uploads/archive/SSC11-II-5_present.pdf

THat was tried before

TBF the MD21 programme had quite a bit of bad luck. *if* you could get a project running today you'd probably do *extensive* CFD on the separation process first, completely impossible in the early 1960s.

I also underestimated the SR71's capacity. I used 5000lb as the standard SR71 surveillance payload, but the spec for the D21 was 5000kg. I presume they launched from a stripped SR71 with a lower fuel load. This is more than White Knight 1 but about 3.5x times smaller than WK2.

There were *never* that many M1+ aircraft with substantial lifting capacity. A Pegasus XL is something like 55000lb. The much smaller payload target (and going with liquid fuels) would shrink the package somewhat (probably < 10). Few (any?) are still flight worthy.

[RanulfC]

The XB70 rated at 50 000  lb would have been much more useful as would the Thunderchief (internal weapons bay, M2 speed). There might even be enough examples left to canabalise to get a flying vehicle.

Just an FYI on the F-105s, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_surviving_Republic_F-105_Thunderchiefs) notes that the majority of "surviviors" are assigned to various Air Museums, "Gate-Guards" or other static displays with only one "possible" listed at the DM-storage facility and 8 of them stationed in Texas on a "Mock-Flightline" for training purposes.

The internal weapons bay was abourt 190 by 32 inches "overall" but tapered going aft to about 20 inches deep.
Info: (http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=90423)
Pics and such of bay:
(http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=33482)

Which would make for a bit of a "funky" LV design going from larger to smaller forward-to-aft

Still an interesting idea, and "external" carry is an additional option, (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/F-105.jpg) especially since it's such a "tall" gear aircraft.
IF, of course, you can get them and get them into flying order.

This vehicle is *complex*. It's a 4 stage vehicle (including the aircraft) to deliver not much to LEO. Any comments about most of the elements are at an advanced level of technology sidesteps the M4-M10 SC Ram jet

Agreed, looks more like a suggestion for a tech development program than a "serious" LV suggestion. 

Randy

[john smith 19]

Just an FYI on the F-105s, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_surviving_Republic_F-105_Thunderchiefs) notes that the majority of "surviviors" are assigned to various Air Museums, "Gate-Guards" or other static displays with only one "possible" listed at the DM-storage facility and 8 of them stationed in Texas on a "Mock-Flightline" for training purposes.

The internal weapons bay was abourt 190 by 32 inches "overall" but tapered going aft to about 20 inches deep.
Info: (http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=90423)
Pics and such of bay:
(http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=33482)

Which would make for a bit of a "funky" LV design going from larger to smaller forward-to-aft

Still an interesting idea, and "external" carry is an additional option, (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/F-105.jpg) especially since it's such a "tall" gear aircraft.
IF, of course, you can get them and get them into flying order.

Agreed, looks more like a suggestion for a tech development program than a "serious" LV suggestion. 

Randy

*nice* pictures. Thanks. I've heard about the bomb bay and discussed it but It's nice to actually *see* it.

I'm not sure but I guess this Boeing concept fits into the current DARPA programme describe here.

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/07/02/darpa-awards-6-small-airborne-launch-vehicle-contracts/

But seriously
$4.5m to get a 3 stage RLV including a flying scramjet??

From the article it looks like LockMart are going with something more like a M1+ launch platform

If you had a free hand I suppose Russian and France could both supply M1+ launch vehicles. The challenge is how to *carry* something with a large nozzle effectively. The other challenge of *any* of these concepts is the logistics support to keep them (or possibly *get* them) flying.

Note that it *might* be possible to have the *body* semi-recessed in a 105 bomb bay and have the rest "overflow" outside it.

One issue which Reaction Engines have made a strong point about is the CP/CG balance, and how it shifts as speed and mass  change.

With this in mind the smart move would be some kind of layout that put engines on either side (possibly on wings) with a mid mounted payload bay with propellant tanks in front and behind the bay.

The wings are sized to generate fully loaded lift at M0.8 (or whatever separation speed with the carrier is) and the landing gear is sized for landing with the payload (in case it cannot be orbited or you want down mass) but otherwise empty. Nozzles would likewise be sized for ambient of about 40 Kft.

My preference would be LOX/Kero (cheap) or LOX/Propyn (cheapish and better performance) but it's tough to find engines that *small*. WK2 can carry about 37000lb and on that basis you'd only need something like a pair of 5000lb thrust engines.

I would *not* care about cross range. If it takes 36 hours to come back over the launch site so be it. However the contract requires landing at normal air fields so that might be a big deal either, although with such nozzles self ferry would not be possible and it'd have to await collection.

The contract sounds intriguing but I'm not sure the concept in *this* thread is going to fly.

[sbt]

If you had a free hand I suppose Russian and France could both supply M1+ launch vehicles.

Query: Why only France of the European nations? Why not Britain, Germany, Italy or, much more likely, various combinations of the same or more? From my experience at work I can assure you that of the European Nations its not only France that has advanced aerospace capabilities. What may be clouding your view is that most large European Aerospace firms are now multi-national and no longer strongly associated with individual Nation States.

Anyway, small point, pray do continue...

PS. Concorde, if thats clouding your view, was Anglo-French, not French. I used to work at Farnborough (in England) with the guys that did the wings.

[john smith 19]

Query: Why only France of the European nations? Why not Britain, Germany, Italy or, much more likely, various combinations of the same or more? From my experience at work I can assure you that of the European Nations its not only France that has advanced aerospace capabilities. What may be clouding your view is that most large European Aerospace firms are now multi-national and no longer strongly associated with individual Nation States.

Anyway, small point, pray do continue...

PS. Concorde, if thats clouding your view, was Anglo-French, not French. I used to work at Farnborough (in England) with the guys that did the wings.

It's not about design skills its who designs aircraft with *large* M1+ cargo capacity (ideally in single lumps) which supports air dropping.
*that* combination suggests nuclear weapons capability which in Europe would strictly speaking be the UK, France and Russia. It's the combination of nuclear capability + indigenous aircraft design skills. Sweden would be on the M2 list but I'm not sure they have anything with decent payload capacity.

Concorde might have been on the list as well *if* the claim it was considered for British nuclear deterrent carriage is more than an UL (no idea about this).

Actually what might be said to be clouding my judgment is the impression the French are very "reasonable" about selling their military hardware.

[sbt]

It's not about design skills its who designs aircraft with *large* M1+ cargo capacity (ideally in single lumps) which supports air dropping.
*that* combination suggests nuclear weapons capability which in Europe would strictly speaking be the UK, France and Russia. It's the combination of nuclear capability + indigenous aircraft design skills. Sweden would be on the M2 list but I'm not sure they have anything with decent payload capacity.

-----------

Actually what might be said to be clouding my judgment is the impression the French are very "reasonable" about selling their military hardware.

Since the Germans have looked deeply into Sanger, a supersonic air-launch proposal, you are probably more likely to see a useful contribution from the German-oriented parts of EADS. Of course BAE Systems also have legacy knowledge from the HOTOL programme. Then I believe Airbus (now effectively part of EADS) have also looked at large SST's.

As far as 'French' products go, of their two big Aerospace manufacturers, one is now part of the pan-european EADS and the other (Dassult) is 46% owned by EADS.

For reasons I won't go into I wouldn't get to hung up on military capability and Nuclear Weapons as a determining factor. Neither would I get hung up on export control issues, especially _into_ the US. IMHO the biggest issues would be with ITAR and the transfer of technology back to europe and thence, possibly, onwards. If anything that would count _against_ firms who are more relaxed about who they export to.

Concorde might have been on the list as well *if* the claim it was considered for British nuclear deterrent carriage is more than an UL (no idea about this).

Another side comment. I do studies regarding military procurement. I have no idea regarding Concorde. However the first questions I ask when I hear 'considered' are 'how seriously', 'by whom' and 'how much work was done'. You should always be careful about the term 'considered'. Quite often a study will 'consider' options that we know aren't going to pan out. This is because a) we might be wrong in our initial judgement, b) its easier to deal with proponents who haven't run the numbers by saying 'we ran the numbers' rather than going though the logic of why the idea is bad yet again and c) you sometimes find out interesting things that generate new ideas and options. In short 'Considered' is not the same as 'Considered Seriously'. In any case the Avro 730 and TSR-2 were purpose designed and around, or just cancelled, at the relevant times - which are a _long_ time ago.

[vulture4]

The B-70 is an impressive machine if anyone has seen the remaining prototype in the Air Force museum, and would be a good candidate for supersonic launch carrier aircraft. It's altitude capability of about 23km would be a step up from what can be reached with a subsonic system, and with a partial fuel load it could easily carry a 25 ton payload, possibly more. That said, given the difficulties with the Pegasus, it still isn't clear that the economics would be favorable in comparison to vertical launch from the ground with a reusable rocket-propelled booster stage.

[john smith 19]

Since the Germans have looked deeply into Sanger, a supersonic air-launch proposal, you are probably more likely to see a useful contribution from the German-oriented parts of EADS. Of course BAE Systems also have legacy knowledge from the HOTOL programme. Then I believe Airbus (now effectively part of EADS) have also looked at large SST's.

For reasons I won't go into I wouldn't get to hung up on military capability and Nuclear Weapons as a determining factor. Neither would I get hung up on export control issues, especially _into_ the US. IMHO the biggest issues would be with ITAR and the transfer of technology back to europe and thence, possibly, onwards. If anything that would count _against_ firms who are more relaxed about who they export to.


Another side comment. I do studies regarding military procurement. I have no idea regarding Concorde. However the first questions I ask when I hear 'considered' are 'how seriously', 'by whom' and 'how much work was done'. You should always be careful about the term 'considered'. Quite often a study will 'consider' options that we know aren't going to pan out. This is because a) we might be wrong in our initial judgement, b) its easier to deal with proponents who haven't run the numbers by saying 'we ran the numbers' rather than going though the logic of why the idea is bad yet again and c) you sometimes find out interesting things that generate new ideas and options. In short 'Considered' is not the same as 'Considered Seriously'. In any case the Avro 730 and TSR-2 were purpose designed and around, or just cancelled, at the relevant times - which are a _long_ time ago.

This subject has come up before and generally only the US candidates are mentioned (F102, F104 have the speed but would need to dump their 1950's avionics for a launch vehicle and the F105 with its bomb bay along with the XB70. Most recent is the B1 but only the A was supersonic).

It's a simple fact that M1+ implies a military bomber of some kind but *ideally* you are looking at something that can carry that mass as a *single* block, rather than a few dozen 250Kg bombs. That suggests a nuclear weapon carriage role. hence UK, France and Russia as producing such aircraft. The exception would be the Tornado.

Do you have any *specific* models you would put forward for this role?

I agree regarding ITAR for the reasons you state. The aircraft would have to  be sold to a US entity and retained in the US for this option to be viable. This raises the issue of logistics support for it (although most of the US candidates are pretty old and would be difficult to get and/or keep flying).

It was interesting you mentioned the Avro 730 (which appears to be the basis of the Skylon design of Reaction Engines). That's a design people have limited awareness of. Along with the 2 French turboramjet aircraft flown in the 1950s (actually about the same time as the J58 was being developed for the SR71). 

My intuition is the idea of Concorde as a nuclear bomber is an internet urban legend until someone suggests a serious reference.

[A_M_Swallow]

{snip}
My intuition is the idea of Concorde as a nuclear bomber is an internet urban legend until someone suggests a serious reference.

Both Concorde and the TRS-2 were to use the Olympus engines.
Ref : Graham, J. A. Maxtone. "You, Too, Can Break The Sound Barrier." Popular Mechanics, March 1968, p. 220.

The aircraft designers know that all those windows meant that the fuselage shape and also avionics would be different.

[MrTim]

That said, the SR-71 would still have made a capable launch platform; big, fast, and high.

http://www.sei.aero/eng/papers/uploads/archive/SSC11-II-5_present.pdf

THat was tried before

Minor correction (not to be a jerk but just for clarity... and because I suspect people trust what they see on this site more than what they see on many other sites) the launch aircraft was not an SR-71 but was a modified A-12. Most people have never heard of the A-12, and when they see a picture of one they think they are looking at an SR-71.

[john smith 19]

{snip}
My intuition is the idea of Concorde as a nuclear bomber is an internet urban legend until someone suggests a serious reference.

Both Concorde and the TRS-2 were to use the Olympus engines.
Ref : Graham, J. A. Maxtone. "You, Too, Can Break The Sound Barrier." Popular Mechanics, March 1968, p. 220.

The aircraft designers know that all those windows meant that the fuselage shape and also avionics would be different.

Both flew and both flew with Olympus, as did the subsonic (but nuclear armed) Vulcan.
I'm *very* doubtful of this suggestion as the structural changes from civil aviation aircraft to military bomber seem so huge it would be simpler to scrap the design and start from scratch.

This is OT but looking over the TSR2 spec I wonder "What was the 1st aircraft to go M1+ "without" afterburner that was not rocket propelled?"