Boeing Unveils Air-Launched Space-Access Concept

[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?"