Robert Cringley's Eldorado air-launch solid rocket

[mainmind]

Reading ArsTechnica's rocket report today, I saw a mention of a new launch company. This time lead by Robert X. Cringley featuring an air-launched solid-fueled rocket. The company will be called Eldorado.

Relevant Rocket Report:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/01/rocket-report-starlink-flies-oneweb-has-next-mega-constellation-launch/

Cringley's blog post announcing company:
https://www.cringely.com/2020/01/23/not-dead-yet-what-bob-cringely-has-been-up-to/

Stats of launch system
* fuel: ammonium perchlorate
* payload: up to 12U cubesat, < 40 kg (cites 40+ kg eventually, doesn't cite initial up-mass)
* airframe: (comments on blog indicate maybe F104, from the image at top of post, but nothing official)
* air launch: 45-degree trajectory at release, air speed mach 2.2
* cost: $1 million US "to any orbit"

Cringley hypes target of launch on just 4 hours of notice, with a launch cadence of one every two hours.

Will this be vaporware or just another rocket startup to abort before its first orbital launch? Is there a market to be had here now that the military's ALASA and XS-1 are in the dustbin?

[edzieba]

There’s actually plenty of clever IP inside Eldorado, but what mainly keeps another startup from just copying our work is the required fleet of Mach 2.2+ launch aircraft. We bought all of them, you see… all of them on the planet.

A bold claim, but if they do indeed have at least one airworthy supersonic craft they can strap something to that puts them ahead of similar totally-not-an-ASAT startups.

* payload: up to 12U cubesat, < 40 kg (cites 40+ kg eventually, doesn't cite initial up-mass)

From the blog post, 12kg:

The smallest rocket so far to put a satellite into orbit from a ground launch was the JAXA SS-520-5 that launched a 3 kg CubeSat for the Japanese government in 2018. That SS-520 used the same solid fuel as our Veloce 17 rocket which makes comparing the two very easy. Our rocket is shorter (4.15 meters compared to 9.65 meters), lighter (1050 kg compared to 2600 kg), and yet our payload is four times as large (12 kg compared to three kg). Our rocket is eight times more efficient than the SS-520 and the ONLY difference is air launching. With continued solid fuel development we confidently expect our 1050 kg rocket to eventually put 40 kg in orbit — 27 times more efficient than the $4.4 million SS-520-5.

[acsawdey]

There’s actually plenty of clever IP inside Eldorado, but what mainly keeps another startup from just copying our work is the required fleet of Mach 2.2+ launch aircraft. We bought all of them, you see… all of them on the planet.

A bold claim, but if they do indeed have at least one airworthy supersonic craft they can strap something to that puts them ahead of similar totally-not-an-ASAT startups.

The picture looks like an F-104 which probably isn't a bad choice for this kind of thing.

I don't know how accurate it is, but wikipedia says there is 4 airworthy examples, one civilian owned in Norway, and 3 owned by Starfighers, Inc. So not implausible that they bought them all, given some funding.

[john smith 19]

Reading ArsTechnica's rocket report today, I saw a mention of a new launch company. This time lead by Robert X. Cringley featuring an air-launched solid-fueled rocket. The company will be called Eldorado.

Relevant Rocket Report:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/01/rocket-report-starlink-flies-oneweb-has-next-mega-constellation-launch/

Cringley's blog post announcing company:
https://www.cringely.com/2020/01/23/not-dead-yet-what-bob-cringely-has-been-up-to/

Yes 

Not inventing anything

is a good idea to keep costs down.

And launch on demand or "responsive space" has been an ongoing interest of some people in the Pentagon for some time.

Time will tell  how well it works out.

[jbenton]

The F-104 Starfighter - "The missile with a man in it" - now launching nanosats into orbit. Somehow, that seems fitting.

Cringley's blog post announcing company:
https://www.cringely.com/2020/01/23/not-dead-yet-what-bob-cringely-has-been-up-to/

Well that was an entertaining read; he's a good writer. Ars said that he was writing mostly in the '90s, but that was somewhat before my time. Thanks for posting!

[Steven Pietrobon]

Here's what their launcher looks like, after I enhanced the image.

[john smith 19]

Here's what their launcher looks like, after I enhanced the image.

IMHO buying all the solids in was Oribitals Achilles heel.

Keeping the company vertically integrated seems to have a better shot as a startup, but that might not always be possible.

Could they do it with 2 stages, instead of Pegasus's 3 or 4?

[edkyle99]

Here's what their launcher looks like, after I enhanced the image.

If that image is accurate, I doubt it would go Mach 2.2.  F-104 flew with jettison-able fuel tanks, wingtip and centerline, but they had speed limits for jettison that were far less than Mach 2.2.  Then again, I'm not an aircraft engineer.

 - Ed Kyle

[Kryten]

 Does this have any relation to CubeCab, which is also meant to use an F-104?

[Rik ISS-fan]

To me this sounds simular to Celestia Aerospace Sagitarius Airborne Launch System.
I've also Aldebaran launcher concept studies in mind. They came up with up to 40% saving in GLOW (take off weight) for air launched from a fighter jet. So this sounds unrealistic.
And rockets aren't lego. There is a reason that most US microwave are launched on India's PSLV rockets while there are >>100 surplus rockets in USAF bunkers. My horse manure alarm went off.

[ChrisWilson68]

And rockets aren't lego. There is a reason that most US microwave are launched on India's PSLV rockets while there are >>100 surplus rockets in USAF bunkers.

That reason is a US law that prevents the government from selling surplus military missiles to compete against commercial launch providers.

But I am amused by the image of a microwave often being launched into space...

[skater]

Here's what their launcher looks like, after I enhanced the image.

If that image is accurate, I doubt it would go Mach 2.2.  F-104 flew with jettison-able fuel tanks, wingtip and centerline, but they had speed limits for jettison that were far less than Mach 2.2.  Then again, I'm not an aircraft engineer.

 - Ed Kyle

Given that they do the launch in a semi-ballistic climb and releases the launch vehicle at 78,000 feet, much higher than an F-104 jettisons its tanks, the aerodynamic forces might be more benign.

[matthewkantar]

And rockets aren't lego. There is a reason that most US microwave are launched on India's PSLV rockets while there are >>100 surplus rockets in USAF bunkers.

That reason is a US law that prevents the government from selling surplus military missiles to compete against commercial launch providers.

But I am amused by the image of a microwave often being launched into space...

Like what? once a week? Daily?

[xyv]

To me this sounds simular to Celestia Aerospace Sagitarius Airborne Launch System.
I've also Aldebaran launcher concept studies in mind. They came up with up to 40% saving in GLOW (take off weight) for air launched from a fighter jet. So this sounds unrealistic.
And rockets aren't lego. There is a reason that most US microwave are launched on India's PSLV rockets while there are >>100 surplus rockets in USAF bunkers. My horse manure alarm went off.

Yea my BS alarm went off too.  Especially after reading the comments from the linked blog on his site.  Appears that a guy that can't complete a kick starter campaign to put a Raspberry in a box now has a VC based rocket company and now claims to own 3 or 4 supersonic fighters.  I'll admit, I don't know this guy or his work but there is a definite aroma of classic American showman..er huckster..er grifter wafting around the comments.

Here's hoping for entertainment value of at least between Vector and "flight of the aerospike"  Hold on to your wallets...

[john smith 19]

Given that they do the launch in a semi-ballistic climb and releases the launch vehicle at 78,000 feet, much higher than an F-104 jettisons its tanks, the aerodynamic forces might be more benign.

Good point.

78000 ft is 23.774Km. The Earths scale height is 5.6Km so air pressure is just under  1/4 that at sea level. Using 0.4 of ambient pressure as the flow separation start point that means a nozzle could exhaust to about 1.47psi before it started to show separation.

The challenge then would be the physical size of the nozzle you could fit to clear the ground or the unbalanced  mass if you hang it off the wing. A ballast tank on the other wing which you drop at the same time?

Note that something like this (solid fueled ELV carried by a fighter aircraft) has been built by the US Navy in the late 50's. One might have made orbit. I think the data was inconclusive (possible beacon transmissions detected).

However note the background. 
Cold War do-or-die project to help safeguard the future of the USA in the post Sputnik panic. IE not-for-profit.
Vs
Might produce yet-another commercial TSTO ELV competing for the same launch space as (for example) RL Electron.

The question is not "is it possible" (Orbital proved that 4 decades ago)
it is "Would it be worthwhile putting your money in this instead of in a bank, or well selected real estate, or just some stocks you chose by sticking a pin in a list."

Let me express polite skepticism.

[octavo]

Here's what their launcher looks like, after I enhanced the image.

If that image is accurate, I doubt it would go Mach 2.2.  F-104 flew with jettison-able fuel tanks, wingtip and centerline, but they had speed limits for jettison that were far less than Mach 2.2.  Then again, I'm not an aircraft engineer.

 - Ed Kyle

I read speculation somewhere that they invested heavily in Boom Supersonic and that the Mach 2.2 launcher is in fact a Boom variant (similar to the XB-1).

https://boomsupersonic.com/xb-1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boom_Technology

[ChrisWilson68]

Here's what their launcher looks like, after I enhanced the image.

If that image is accurate, I doubt it would go Mach 2.2.  F-104 flew with jettison-able fuel tanks, wingtip and centerline, but they had speed limits for jettison that were far less than Mach 2.2.  Then again, I'm not an aircraft engineer.

 - Ed Kyle

I read speculation somewhere that they invested heavily in Boom Supersonic and that the Mach 2.2 launcher is in fact a Boom variant (similar to the XB-1).

https://boomsupersonic.com/xb-1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boom_Technology

That speculation doesn't sound plausible to me.

In the quote from an earlier post in this thread, Eldorado uses the plural in saying they bought up all the aircraft.  But Boom seems to be talking about currently building only a single demonstrator prototype.  Indeed, given Boom's limited financing, they really don't have the money to be working on more than one.

And if Eldorodo bought their aircraft, then Boom is out of business.  If Boom was out of business, we would have heard of that.

It also just doesn't make sense to buy an aircraft that is under development and has never flown.  Eldorodo isn't going to be in a good position to complete development of the aircraft.

Indeed, it would be very, very foolish of Eldorodo to buy Boom's aircraft.  It would be far cheaper to buy one of the jet fighters that are known to exist that can already do what they need than to buy a new aircraft under development.  For Boom it makes sense to build this aircraft as a demonstrator for their much larger supersonic passenger craft.  For Eldorodo, it does not.

None of this connection of Boom to Eldorodo makes sense.  And it's pure speculation.  There's no evidence that actually suggests Eldoro has any connection at all to Boom.  It's all uninformed speculation.

[trm14]

None of this connection of Boom to Eldorodo makes sense.  And it's pure speculation.  There's no evidence that actually suggests Eldoro has any connection at all to Boom.  It's all uninformed speculation.

I'm not even sure if either Eldorado or Boom separately make any sense.