Northrup hybrid launch vehicle

[josh_simonson]

http://space.com/news/060404_hybrid_air.html<br /><br />I'm not a big fan of subscale demonstrators, but this launch system could pave the way for better RLVs in the future if it survives. <br /><br />Their HLV acronym is unfortunate... Maybe HyLV would be by better.

 

[mlorrey]

I'll note that they are planning a flight regime similar to my own concept: air breathing up to mach 7, rocket engines to orbit.

 

[josh_simonson]

It looks like they're rocket to mach 7, then air breathing back to base. Their turbofan engines probably aren't powerful enough to get the fully fueled launch vehicle into the air or up to ramjet speed - they only fly it around empty. <br /><br />"The first stage of the HLV will use a rocket engine during the boost portion of its mission, and an integrated set of air-breathing jet engines for its return flight."<br /><br />

 

[larper]

I know a guy who was working on an IRAD at Lockmart that looked very similar to this. Wonder if it is actually a competition, and we haven't seen the LM version yet. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[scottb50]

Sound mysteriously similar to what I have been pushing here, except in scale.<br /><br />I plan using the jet engines up to MaxQ to offset the weight of the engines and fuel. I would also go a lot higher than 150,000 feet and faster than M8 and use the upper stage as building material in LEO. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[propforce]

Mach 7... LOL... Northrop is going to do it with $2million dollar study contract that a $1B dollar NASP could not do, nor could the 10-year NASA HSCT project. Genius.......<br /><br />Oh wait... it's just a paper study ! Geez, Mlorrey and Scott50, you both could have won that $2M !! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">It looks like they're rocket to mach 7, then air breathing back to base. </font><br /><br />OK, now that makes more sense and more doable. It is a form of Liquid Fly Back Booster (LFBB) concept with rocket powered up and subsonic cruise back to launch site. <br /><br />This win is also a result of Air Force ARES competition which the AF selected 3~4 contractors for this phase.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

Very interesting. At first I thought this vehicle might just be another FALCON project contender, but the article mentions the 'medium' version of the EELV so this vehicle is something much larger than FALCON. Perhaps 8 tonnes payload to LEO?<br /><br />Northrop calls it a Hybrid Launch Vehicle? That seems like a silly name, but the design is otherwise very sensible. Since the reusable rocket-plane 1st-stage only reaches Mach 7 - a much simpler, cheaper, and more durable thermal protection system than the Shuttle is possible.

 

[frodo1008]

Almost every one of the original designs for the STS system (space shuttle) was to be designed and built in exactly this manner! However, at the time congress thought that the initial costs would be too high, and so forced NASA back to the drawing board where thay came up with the current stage-and-a-half type of vehicle.<br /><br />I personally, have always thought that this more complete two stage totally reuseable liquid engined fly back booster type of concept was what the shuttle should have been! With the experience gained on the current system, and more modern abilities such as composite construction this type of system could very well be even cheaper to develop, and it would absolutely be much cheaper to operate than the current shuttle system! <br /><br />Also, NASA wanted the original shuttle orbiter to be far smaller than the eventual design. But to obtain the considerable political clout of the military, they had to make the orbiter far larger than it should have been. <br /><br />If you were to take the booster in this concept and make it large enough to carry a smaller orbiter that could return from space and then land, you would have a true space shuttle. A true TSTO space shuttle! <br /><br />One thing that would be most important to making such a TSTO vehicle far less expensive to operate would be to develope a far less delicate TPS system! With a rapid turn around time and an orbiter that had its own internal propellent supply (instead of that very large payload bay and cumbersome external tank) you could have a future taxi to LEO capable of carrying up to ten people into LEO for only about $100 million per flight (a small fraction of the shuttles current launch costs, even when it was flying some 6-8 times per year). If the flight rate were high enough the costs could even come down more!<br /><br />Maybe, with the far more robust funding of the military this could even be done, and eventually turned over to the pure private interests for such use

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Almost every one of the original designs for the STS system (space shuttle) was to be designed and built in exactly this manner!...I personally, have always thought that this more complete two stage totally reuseable liquid engined fly back booster type of concept was what the shuttle should have been!"<br /><br />I believe this new Northrop-Grumman vehicle is intended to use an expendable for the 2nd-stage. Which in my opinion is a good choice since it avoids the TPS headaches of trying to make an orbital velocity stage reusable.<br /><br />"...you could have a future taxi to LEO capable of carrying up to ten people into LEO for only about $100 million per flight"<br /><br />It hasn't escaped my notice that the likely payload capacity of the Northrop-Grumman 'HLV' could easily cope with the mass of the t/Space CXV 4-man reusable capsule.

 

[frodo1008]

I agree that at this time the concept is for an expendible second stage. But at least this gets us up to a true fly back first stage booster!<br /><br />Heck, if such a booster could be upgraded to a powerful enough booster it might even be able to boost NASA's CEV capsule design to LEO!<br /><br />And eventually upgraded further to even become as I stated. What the shuttle should have been all along. A true TSTO booster for a proper orbiter!<br /><br />Hopefully, with enough research into the hypersonic area eventually we could have what I consider to be the ultimate in rocket type travel from Earth to LEO. A true single stage to orbit, horizontal take-off and landing, lifting body type of craft. Capable of taking many passengers to LEO in aircraft like comfort, for a resonable price! However, I still consider this to be at least two decades away! But this would be a good beginning towards that ultimate goal!<br /><br />

 

[nacnud]

It's an interesting if old idea. A different take on which can be found by goolgeing for the EDAS hopper, an now defunct project of similar scope.

 

[qso1]

Yet another proposal that will run up against the cost barrier eventually...if it even gets that far. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

update -- press release from Northrop-Grumman<br /><br />http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.mhtml?d=96718

 

[frodo1008]

Not if it is the military that is going to do it! Compared to NASA their funding is unlimited!

 

[CalliArcale]

Sadly, that is not true. I've seen military programs get eaten by the budget monster.<br /><br />Perhaps the most poignant example for this case would be Dynasoar. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

Both Dynasoar and the MOL project (we did some cleanliness checks on MOL tanks at Santa Su in the 1960's, so it went well beyond the paper stage) were a long time ago. These were both to be manned projects, which it does indeed seem that the military has decided to let NASA do almost exclusively.<br /><br />The EELV projects would be far closer to this concept than anything manned. So the military, which would make use of such a system to rapidly launch its communications, spy, and GPS satellites would indeed have the funding for this!

 

[frodo1008]

Of course, extending this concept into the manned area would quite probably fall into the hands of the much more funding straped NASA! But we can always dream and hope!<br /><br />Also, as I said it might just work for the pure private interests of the space tourism buisness, but that would be far into the future!

 

[spacefire]

to shoot 2 birds with one stone...would the subscale demonstrator be able to put micro-payloads in orbit? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

I wonder if a trade study would show that it woulr be mroe feasilble weight-wise to store more fuel for the rocket engine and use that, after the second stage is deployed, to position the first stage for a gliding return to base. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[7419]

One implication of launch on demand or launch on short notice is payloads that are sitting in storage ready to be launched as needed. As this is a military project that to me implies some sort of recon platform or possibly a weapons system. Another possiblity is communications or GPS

 

[nacnud]

It's also a small securty against ASAT weapons.

 

[mikejz]

Or else I was thinking that it could be a move to the use of constellations where the satellites are of a low cost design with a high failure rate; with the rapid launch capability making up for the lack of relability. <br /><br />It might also mark a move towards a passive deterence to space weapons. "Don't bother knocking out our satellites, we'll have them replaced almost as fast as you can take them out"

 

[josh_simonson]

Or it could be used to launch space weapons in a pinch since it can reach any relevant earth orbit.

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">As this is a military project that to me implies some sort of recon platform or possibly a weapons system. </font><br /><br />FYI. Satellites is a weapon system in today's warfighting. It serves a critical role in our C4ISR. <br /><br />Hopefully they can hunt down Bin Laden too!<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>