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

[docm]

<font color="yellow">The HL20 is interesting, too, because it is a highly optimized lifting body that is the culmination of American research into spaceplanes.</font><br /><br />Actually we obtained spy photos of the Russian BOR-4 being recovered and reverse engineered it with our own improvements <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><br />BOR-4 pic....<br /><br />BOR-4 was based on the 2x larger MiG-105-11 spaceplane;<br /><br />MIG-105-11 pic....<br /><br />NASA page with big HL-20 pic.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[no_way]

while i really would like to see as many different approaches as possible in getting to orbit affordably, i do think that RpKs approach is about as dumb as you can go.<br /><br />They havent flown a single bit of hardware, and they expect to pull a two-stage fully reuseable orbital vehicle out of the hat ?<br /><br />Well, best of luck to them, i just hope that their inevitable setbacks wont be large enough to have an impact on the industry as a whole.<br /><br />Half-baked ventures tend to do more damage than good for the common cause, see the spectacular history Moller's flying car for instance.

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Anyone have thoughts about using MAF for the K1? It has advantages, including Orion processing and workforce."<br /><br />The K-1 is being assembled at MAF. It is the ET workforce doing the work. CEV work won't have started yet.<br /><br />MAF is not assembling the CEV, it is only manufacturing structural components. CEV assembly is at KSC. <br /><br />"If the K1 could fly a capsule/refit the second stage, RpK would benefit from being physically close to Lockmart. "<br /><br />Andrew is building a capsule for the K-1. <br /><br />There is no advantage to being "close" to LM at MAF. MAF is just a manufacturing site, engineering is done elsewhere. The advantage is to LM, they save overhead costs but don't have to pass them on

 

[j05h]

<i>> Actually we obtained spy photos of the Russian BOR-4 being recovered and reverse engineered it with our own improvements </i><br /><br />Sure, there was a lot of cross-fertilization (spying) between the Superpowers. This general planform (along with X-38/x-24) promised an idealized reentry form based on Shuttle and recovery capsule research. Really a third-generation spaceplane. It's looking like spaceplanes are again in the running, but on the more efficient crew-exchange than on flying an entire Orbiter for crew. <br /><br />j <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

According to an alledged RPK insider <br /><br />"If you didn't know for COTS, at the end of the day, we are planning to deliver 3 second stages and two lower stages."<br /><br />They are not building only 1 vehicle. That probably doesn't mean that they'll have a backup vehicle on standby when they do their first test, but a second vehicle will probably be at some stage of completeness. If they follow SpaceXs launch performance to this point, they'd still have 1 of each stage now. <br /><br />They really aught to launch a boilerplate second stage on their first flight though. That will avoid destroying an expensive second stage if the first stage fails.

 

[j05h]

josh- thanks for real information, even if it's hear-say. Multiple copies of each stage is common sense.<br /><br />It's interesting that Andrews is working with RpK.<br /><br />josh<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

I'm kind of suprised Jim didn't bring that up since that was posted by GF3 on NSF about two months ago. Perhaps since it wasn't from 3 sources excluding wikipedia it doesn't count in his eyes. He's instrumental in getting stuff into space, so we can forgive him for being picky and confident. I'd fear for the program if he weren't so obstinate and frustratingly knowledgeable. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />