Boeing Unveils Air-Launched Space-Access Concept

[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