Armadillo Aerospace Crashes Latest Vehicle

[radarredux]

By the way, for those of you wanting to support X Prize efforts in general and Armadillo in particular, you can purchase T-shirts and sweatshirts from Armadillo's store.<br /><br />You can even buy some parts ("droppings") from "decommissioned" rockets -- like the one that went boom this past week.<br /><br />http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home/Paraphernalia<br /><br />The X Prize store (hosted by Cafepress.com) with various shirts, a coffee mug, lunch box, and a license plate holder is at:<br /><br />http://www.cafeshops.com/xprize

 

[propforce]

<i>".... That is why the party is over for Lock Mart and Boeing. The days of 100 million dollar rockets are numbered. ( ten years or so ) ..."</i><br /><br />I think we all need to understand the cost of space launch. I do not profess to fully understand it myself, but from what I've been told, only a small % of cost is the cost of hardware. A big part of cost has to do with all the documents required to get the permission for launch. <br /><br />The jury is still out for the business case like SpaceX and/or Rutan's Scaled Composite. Even Rutan avoided the 'business route' where it could cost him upwards of $300 millions to get certified by the FAA to carry passengers.<br /><br />Also, there's a big difference between delivering a experimental micro-satellite vs. a $1 billion communication/ C4ISR/ space exploration satellite. The demand for reliability and orbital insertion accuracy goes up as the value of your space asset goes up. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[propforce]

Rutan has a contract with DARPA called RASCAL where he is being funded to develop the first stage aircraft for high altitude separation with upper stage expendable rocket and payload at approx. 200K feet. The program cost 'goal' is at $10,000/kg, or $4,500/lbm, of payload upto 150kg payload to 500km and 28.5 deg. orbit. <br /><br />The above information was cleared for public release <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <br /><br />ps- when it comes to payload cost $/lbm, it may still be more expensive than the Boeing/LockMart EELV fleet, with almost a certainty of <i>less</i> accuracy in orbital insertion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">For sure the Russians have been at $1000 a pound for ever.</font>/i><br /><br />Two opposing data points. I am currently reading "New Moon Rising", which includes a forward by Homer Hickam, former NASA employee and currently a writer ("Rocket Boys" / "October Skies"). Both Homer and the "New Moon Rising" authors are fairly critical of the shuttle (e.g., "The Shuttle was always cranky, overly complex, prone to break down, and difficult to prepare for launch").<br /><br />Similarly, Greg Klerkx in "Lost in Space : The Fall of NASA and the Dream of a New Space Age" is fairly critical of NASA and the shuttle.<br /><br />Even during the Aldridge Commission hearings several of the people (including commission members) observed with some sad humor how NASA employees were proud that they could get such a <i>complex</i> vehicle to fly.<br /><br />So from all these data points, I would argue that the shuttle is a poor yardstick for measuring what launch costs could be.<br /><br />However, to take the other side of the argument, the recent Planetary Society report on their vision mentioned that some international launch costs were artificially low because governments subsidized them.<br /><br />My current working opinion is that we do not have enough data points objectively derived to arrive at a consensus as to what true costs of launch should be.<br /><br />Hopefully over the next few years we will see several new launch efforts both human suborbital (Rutan, etc.) and unmanned orbital (SpaceX, Kistler (or whoever buys their assets), etc.). Hopefully these will give us better clarity as to what launch costs should be.</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Rutan has a contract with DARPA called RASCAL</font>/i><br /><br />More about RASCAL can be found at the links below. The second link is a 3 page PDF document that includes a Tom Clancy like introduction to expected operations.<br /><br />http://www.darpa.mil/tto/programs/rascal.html<br />http://www.darpa.mil/DARPATech2002/presentations/tto_pdf/speeches/CARTER.pdf<br />http://www.darpa.mil/body/NewsItems/pdf/rascal_phii_updated.pdf<br /><br />[Side note: We just had a discussion earlier in this thread about being disqualified for the X Prize if you get government money. Hmm...]</i>

 

[propforce]

><font color="yellow"><i> For sure the Russians have been at $1000 a pound for ever. </i></font><br /><br />I just look up the launch cost of Proton from Isakawitz, 3rd ed. (AIAA publication), which is being marketed by LockMart via its International Launch Services (ILS)<br /><br />Estimated launch cost is $100 ~ $112 million (USD)<br />Payload performance to 200km, 51.6 deg orbit is 46,300 lbm <br /><br />That would make cost/lbm of $2,160 ~ $2,419 per lbm <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[propforce]

Excerpt from your 2nd link<br /><br /><i>".... In addition to the six RASCAL performers, DARPA has five small companies working on MIPCC turbojet<br />technology. Later this year, these teams will demonstrate full-scale turbojet engines in MIPCC mode<br />operating at critical flight conditions, including Mach 3 at 100,000 feet altitude...." </i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[propforce]

"THEY" ??? You mean Rutan? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">You are a wealth of info that has little to do with the point.</font>/i><br /><br />I am not certain what you are referring to, as discussions regularly drift or bifurcate as one point is picked up, tweaked, and followed.<br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">Furthermore you need a good editor. ... 1000 dollars per poung.</font>/i><br /><br />Yeah, I'll remember that. <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /><br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">As it is 2000 per pound is quite a bit less then 10000 for regular rockets. No commercial enterprise can buy a ride on the Shuttle anyway.</font>/i><br /><br />Determining actual costs and pricing of launch is a very imprecise process. Figuring out how many launches to amortize development costs across, determining the proper rate to depreciate hardware that is reused, identifying what gets billed as overhead to launches, etc. are difficult, especially when the number of events (e.g., launches) are limited or unknown. Add in the lack of transparency of most launches (typically because they are government subsidized through various means and for various reasons (e.g., keeping or creating an industrial base, national pride)), and trying to arrive at an objective cost becomes very difficult.<br /><br />For example, the DOD paid a lot for the Atlas V and Delta IV EELVs. If LockMart or Boeing offer their launch service to a commercial organization, could another launch competitor claim that LockMart and Boeing's launch costs are subsidized by DOD development costs? Probably.<br /><br />The $10,000 per pound has been paraded by NASA for years as to the reason new launch technologies are needed. I agree that it is probably bogus, but nevertheless, the number has been used regularly by NASA Administrators for years.<br /><br />As for the lack of commercial launches on the shuttle, I am very aware of that; although, for a number of years it was policy that the shuttle would be</i></i></i>