RpK to build K-1 @ NASA Michoud (New Orleans)

[jimfromnsf]

[quotes]<br /><br />do you know of any plans to build more vehicles?<br /><p><hr /><br /><br />I believe they are only doing the one for now. Money is tight. Raising funds has been difficult for them</p>

 

[spacester]

I just wanted to get your attention. If you edit a post for content, it is customary to make a note of the change.<br /><br />We had a poster here named ProjectOrion years ago who caused all manner of mischief by editing posts and turning off the edit notice. I just made people jump by typing in that name, lol, it was a very bad period here. <br /><br />Not doing that is IMO a very important unwritten rule, and I wanted to offer you the best opportunity to get off on the right foot. The idea is to take your time to post what you mean to say, and then stand by it. I've only edited for content less than 5 times here in 6+ years.<br /><br />My apologies for the perceived over-reaction. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

I am use to forum software that delinates if a post has been edited and so I never had to point it out. I reread my post and just corrected an error

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">It was never in a facility where is (sic) could be completed. Just parts scattered around</font><br /><br />My understanding was otherwise, that they had the room to finish her there. Obviously, it makes all the difference in my supposition, and if you're right, we're looking at just the one flight article.<br /><br />The thing that nags at me though, looking ahead, is that it seems unlikely that NASA would ultimately contract for cargo and crew services with a company having all its eggs in one basket. Seemingly they will have to build a second unit to become NASA-worthy. Just speculation on my part. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bpfeifer]

I follow SpaceX more closely than RPK (because I like them better), but since SpaceX is required to perform multiple flights, I'd be shocket if RPK wasn't also planning multiple flights. <br /><br />I realize the K-1 is supposed to be reusable, but do they really expect to have a launch failure rate of 0? I sure hope they plan to build a few. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Brian J. Pfeifer http://sabletower.wordpress.com<br /> The Dogsoldier Codex http://www.lulu.com/sabletower<br /> </div>

 

[dreada5]

To be honest I haven't been following RPK's efforts too closely. Do they have any video media on how their proposed system will work and its capabilities?

 

[docm]

http://www.kistleraerospace.com/<br /><br />http://www.kistleraerospace.com/photogallery/wallpaper/wallpaper.html<br /><br />RPK has been a hangar queen so long I was shocked when they were picked over entries like t/Space. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

The pictures in their media gallery illustrate one thing above all others: after 15 years or so, they still haven't flown anything for the K1. They have lots of computer-generated pics and some old Russian engines on a teststand. Nothing else. The only accomplishment they have in the past is conducting the heaviest successful parachute drop ever, to test their chutes and airbags, and that was almost 10 years ago. <br /><br />I think it's highly irresponsible of RpK to plan on only a single flight unit. Cash is tight for them (we all can understand that situation) but in their new incarnation they haven't indicated any interest in building new rockets? That seems odd. <br /><br />Part of this might be their tight-lipped nature, but as I pointed out above, we know more about Blue Origin's plans than RpK.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />I think it's highly irresponsible of RpK to plan on only a single flight unit. Cash is tight for them (we all can understand that situation) but in their new incarnation they haven't indicated any interest in building new rockets? That seems odd. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />irresponsible?<br />To who.<br /><br />I didn't see two SS1's. <br />If it is to be a reusable system, then there is no need for a 2nd one for now. <br /><br />Test the 1st one and see if there is a market for more. The current flight rate doesn't support the need for a 2nd one<br /><br />

 

[docm]

SS1 was a test spacecraft designed for one thing: to win the X-Prize. This is the only scenario where your logic works.<br /><br />2 problematic scenarios with RpK;<br /><br />1. RpK builds their launcher and a backup. The first fails, as they often do, and in 6 months they get another chance to redeem themselves. <br /><br />2. RpK <i>finally</i> finishes their single launcher. It fails and it takes them another several years to fly, assuming its investors don't fly first. <br /><br />#2 is where your option fails in not accounting for the <i>psychology</i> of investors when there is an initial failure and there is no immediately available backup with which to proceed. <br /><br />Business 101: have a fall-back position you can leverage.<br /><br />RpK seems stuck on 2. <br /><br />Wrong pick. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

There is only one scenario:<br /><br />first get enough money for the first one, else other ones are exercises in futility

 

[docm]

No, tell them you need 1.5x the cost of #1. Next leverage the other .5x then build #1 and the backup. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

Doesn't matter what you ask. There first has to be investors.

 

[docm]

And then you have to deliver results. <br /><br />Plan 1 gives you 2 chances to do so before some investors start reconsidering. Plan 2 doesn't. <br /><br />Ever hear the one about putting all your eggs in one basket? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

The problem is not "reconsidering" , the problem is considering. You still don't understand, they don't have the eggs nor the basket yet. And if you have one egg, you don't need the basket. Read between the lines

 

[j05h]

JIm, I get what you are saying, but it still doesn't bode well for RpK. Look at what happened on SpaceX's maiden flight (and on #2), no amount of reusability matters if something snaps, explodes or crumples during Max-Q. DocM makes a good point about the psychology of investors, if RpK wanted to insure a series of flights were possible they would be trying to build a second vehicle. SpaceX's first flight was a failure, but they were able to immediately turn it around because they had a second Falcon being built. <br /><br />RpK does have the egg, and part of the basket. The problem is it's an old egg and the basket has a hole in it. I want them to succeed, but they are not confidence-inspiring.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

As a reusable vehicle, the K-1 will have intact aborts. It is not like the F-1

 

[gunsandrockets]

"As a reusable vehicle, the K-1 will have intact aborts. It is not like the F-1"<br /><br />You seem to forget the Falcon 1 first stage is also supposed to be reusuable, but that certainly didn't give the Falcon 1 any kind of useful intact abort capability.<br /><br />Perhaps you can describe exactly how the two-stage K-1 could make an intact abort? That would be some neat trick.

 

[jimfromnsf]

Spacex changed it to "recoverable"<br />A reusable stage that is recovered in salt water wouldn't have nuts that corrode in salt air.<br /><br />K-1 could be recovered if there is a velocity shortfall.

 

[docm]

What's the sense of it being "recoverable" if it isn't substantially reusable? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

post flight inspections

 

[gunsandrockets]

[Spacex changed it to "recoverable"]<br /><br />Link please.<br /><br />[A reusable stage that is recovered in salt water wouldn't have nuts that corrode in salt air.]<br /><br />The suspect nut wasn't supposed to corrode.<br /><br />[K-1 could be recovered if there is a velocity shortfall.]<br /><br />Yeah, right. <br /><br />So how is a K-1 supposed to recover from an abort when it's multiple times heavier than it's normal dry weight from holding tons of unused propellant, assuming the K-1 even manages to successfully divide since each stage is designed to parachute and land individually.<br /><br />Care to try again?<br /><br />

 

[j05h]

<i>> As a reusable vehicle, the K-1 will have intact aborts. It is not like the F-1</i><br /><br />You're a smart guy, how many failure modes can you come up with in 30 seconds? Engine explosion? Vibration/pogo? Airbag failure? How many others? If RpK has a catastrophic failure once their single vehicle is airborne, they are sunk. Building a second one ASAP should be a priority, but doesn't seem to be. Intact abort means nothing when the vehicle is raining flaming debris onto the pad. <br /><br />I am highly doubtful of a single vehicle as both test platform and reusable launcher. Do they really think that the single K1 will survive testing and 50+ paying launches without trouble? Do you?<br /><br />Also, lastly, assuming an intact abort, the first stage does it's drop-back to site (following original flight profile), with the second stage and payload landing where? In the Atlantic or overseas, with a good chance the payload is damaged on landing. <br /><br />No rocket is perfect, but I'm even more skeptical of the K1 as time goes on. It's not 1994 anymore.<br /><br />Josh <br /><br />PS - and to spread it around, the Dreamchaser shares, IMHO, some of the age issues that the K1 may have. They are old tech at this point. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[docm]

JO5H;<br /><br />For all we know the only thing DreamChaser has in common with the HL20 is shape, and good design doesn't necessarily outdate easily; the arch, the Corona re-entry shell, <i>lifting bodies</i> etc.<br /><br />At the least the suborbital version is being built with advanced composites, so that's up to date. I would severely doubt that the avionics and other systems escaped updating. Thermal protection for orbital use is already worked out with NASA/AMES, so that's in-hand. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

Doc- I should have stated that the trouble is with flying the original Dreamchaser (which SpaceDev/Benson may do), not with their plan to build many new DreamChasers. This is actually a good point to compare, the K1 vs DC production plans. RpK apparently plans to build/fly one unit for now, while Jim Benson explicitly plans to build many units and expand their flight envelope into an orbital crew vehicle. Reusing tried-and-true aerodynamics isn't a problem to me, that is one of the bright spots for the CEV, for instance. t/space also choose this route as you pointed out. My concern is with flying actual dinosaurs, not building new birds along the same lines.<br /><br />The HL20 is interesting, too, because it is a highly optimized lifting body that is the culmination of American research into spaceplanes. The only advance since has been the non-orbital SS1 design. It's a great design (should have flown in the 80s!) and it's great to see it coming back, especially updated.<br /><br />Anyone have thoughts about using MAF for the K1? It has advantages, including Orion processing and workforce. It has disadvantages, like being at sealevel (Katrina). If the K1 could fly a capsule/refit the second stage, RpK would benefit from being physically close to Lockmart.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>