New Air Force/Lockheed fly back booster!

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

space_dreamer

Guest
Air Force/Lockheed plot new launch vehicle<br /> <br />http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?id=4487<br /><br />Fresh off the US Air Force announcement of the SIV Space Test Program's "Standard Interface Vehicle" (STP-SIV), Lockheed Martin have revealed they have won an initial contract for the Hybrid Launch Vehicle (HLV) Studies and Analysis program. <br />The HLV announcement, which will ring bells with those that followed the early days of the X-33, notes " the HLV will provide the Air Force with an affordable, responsive, reliable and simple-to-operate capability for launching tactical space assets and conventional satellites into low earth orbit (LEO)."<br /><br />While the HLV won't be an SSTO (Single Stage to Orbit) craft, the Air Force - who nearly adopted the stalled 'VentureStar' program from Lockheed Martin and NASA, have a lot of the X-33's operational capabilities targeted for the HLV. <br />The vehicle will be highly responsive, with an anticipated 24- to 48-hour turnaround time. Air Force requirements call for a HLV that will accommodate medium to heavy lift (10,000 to 15,000 pounds) for LEO inclinations. <br />Lockheed Martin will formulate conceptual designs for an operational system architecture, a subscale demonstrator and associated ground hardware and infrastructure for an HLV that employs a reusable first-stage booster and an expendable upper stage.<br />'Our expertise in reusable launch vehicles positions us to formulate a system design concept that will completely meet the Air Force’s needs for a highly operable vehicle that also is extremely reliable,' said Dave Kennon, Hybrid Launch Vehicle program manager, Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company. <br /><br />'Under our concept, the HLV will take off vertically and the reusable first stage will return to the launch site for a horizontal landing.'<br />The vehicle will adopt a vertical launch approach, with a reusable booster fir
 
J

john_316

Guest
I also wonder if the aerospike engine (J-2) will be apart of the program as well?<br /><br />It does seem that they can salvage some things from the X-33 program for this new one.<br /><br />10,000 to 15,000 lb can offer the USAF some interesting pieces of equipment to place in orbit. Some being precision munitions and specialty satellites and hots of other items for a 5 to 7 ton range.<br /><br />I am surprised they havent gone to a Solid Rocket Booster to provide additional first strike capability at no reusability in some of their programs other than ICBM's.<br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />
 
P

propforce

Guest
This is the same contract that Northrop-Grunman won under the ARES umbrella which is approx $3M for a phase 1 study. The ground rule, which was dictated by the Air Force, is a vertical launch first stage with a flyback booster, with separation at Mach 7 ~ 200K feet.<br /><br />It is interesting, however; no turbofan/turbojet engine supplier was mentioned.<br /><br />Other contractors selected for this award include Northrop Grumann, Orbital Science Corp (OSC) and Andrews Space & Tech (AST). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
H

henryhallam

Guest
<font color="yellow">Yep, NSF still blocks non-US IP's.</font><br />I can read the article just fine, and an interesting one it is too.<br />Why would Chris Bergin, who lives in the UK, want to block non-US ip addresses?<br />Sounds like something's just screwed up with your doman name server.
 
J

j05h

Guest
Yawn. More Billion Dollar Viewgraphs. Build it and I'll believe.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
J

john_316

Guest
Absolutely correct......<br /><br /><br />I'll believe it when I see it........<br /><br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />
 
S

space_dreamer

Guest
John_316 and J05H I can relate to your scepticism, Its worth noting that this concept is lot less ambitious than the X30 or X33, which increases chance of getting funding. <br /><br />I would have thought that a fly back first stage would be the next logical step from the EELVs and the only way US launch providers could compete with the Russians for satellite launches in terms of cost. <br />
 
J

josh_simonson

Guest
Hey, at least they're looking at it. If they don't follow through it means the economics just aren't there yet.
 
J

john_316

Guest
They should also have in their inventories reliable rockets that are relatively cheap and can place certain critical items in orbit as needed without all the bells and whistles some other rockets require or are placed on.<br /><br /><br />The USAF needs to Prioritize its manned launch capacity, satellite delivery capacity, strategic weapons delivery capacity, missile defense capacity and special weapons delivery capacity to ensure that they retain all in some form or another with reduced costs associated with them.<br /><br />Do the R&D and build the missiles and rockets that will perform the job correctly and on time.<br /><br />The USAF does need automatic reaction time with BMD and possible orbital deliveries. Thats were systems like Pegasus help out to launch light satellites that have short lifespans and can be launched on the fly when needed. They also need special weapons capability to also deliver special munitions that are non-nuclear to a targets on the fly without resorting to cruise missiles and aircraft. The precision munition approach for a cheap reliable and quick launch strike weapon system would be very valuable indeed and greatly enhance our arsenal of deterrance.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />
 
J

john_316

Guest
Another note to follow up on my post!<br /><br /><br />When I re-read the link below I get the impression that a X-33 "like" vehicle comes to mind. I don't know whether to think that as a good or bad thing but I am thinking that if they need a 60,000 lb cargo launcher they will need to create a "Venture Star" like vehicle that launches vertically and then flys back.<br /><br />Link />>> http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Andrews_Joins_USAF_Hybrid_Launch_Vehicle_Effort.html<br /><br /><br />I doubt they will take over the Shuttle program in 2012! Then again who knows?<br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />
 
S

SpaceKiwi

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The vehicle will be highly responsive, with an anticipated 24- to 48-hour turnaround time.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Wow, April 1st came 'round quick again. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>
 
P

propforce

Guest
This is Air Force's notional concept for HLV. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
R

rocketwatcher2001

Guest
That looks like a good way to do it. Sort of reminds me of what the shuttle was supposed to be. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
T

tomnackid

Guest
Sort of reminds me of what the shuttle was supposed to be.<br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Wouldn't that be the ultimate irony! The Shuttle ended up with no flyback booster and a delta winged orbiter because of constraints imposed by the Air Force. Now the Air Force is developing what the shuttle was intended to be in the first place! If I were the conspiracy-minded type I might almost think that the Air Force is actively sabotaging civilian space efforts!
 
J

john_316

Guest
That picture kind of reminds me of an enlarged X-37 mission vehicle with the "so called booster stage" i.e. Peacekeeper or what have you. We still have a lot of peacekeeper and minuteman boosters that have been retired and are assigned as space booster assets.<br /><br />They "Boeing" and others are in the midst of updating and upgrading the MMIII fleet. I was wondering when they would get around to doing something like this. I was thinking they would go to the 747-launcher options with a booster stage. <br /><br />I think the USAF and DOD/NSA have been in my computer again. Doing my best Napoleon impression "Damn them!<br /><br />I have to admire ingenuity though.....<br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />
 
W

willpittenger

Guest
Just don't try to reconnect the parts in flight (during landing). That would be a major accident (ala Columbia or Challenger) waiting to happen. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>
 
N

nacnud

Guest
Well the EELVs have only recently become operational, the is no need for a replacement for a while.
 
M

mikejz

Guest
That reminds me of when the Delta IV's first flight a Boeing officer mentioned that 'The next booster will probably be reusable, but that he could not talk more about it' <br /><br />Think it was from the video coverage of the launch.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts