This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Commercialization

DARPA's New Spaceplane

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
July 15, 2014
Filed under ,

Work Commences on Experimental Spaceplane (XS-1) Designs [With Video], DARPA
“In an era of declining budgets and adversaries’ evolving capabilities, quick, affordable and routine access to space is increasingly critical for both national and economic security. Current satellite launch systems, however, require scheduling years in advance for a handful of available slots. Launches often cost hundreds of millions of dollars each, in large part to the massive amounts of dedicated infrastructure and personnel required.
– The Boeing Company (working with Blue Origin, LLC)
– Masten Space Systems (working with XCOR Aerospace)
– Northrop Grumman Corporation (working with Virgin Galactic)”

Boeing to Design XS-1 Experimental Spaceplane For DARPA
“Boeing plans to design a reusable launch vehicle for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in support of the U.S. government’s efforts to reduce satellite launch costs. DARPA’s XS-1 Experimental Spaceplane is conceived as a reusable, unmanned booster with costs, operation and reliability similar to modern aircraft.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

27 responses to “DARPA's New Spaceplane”

  1. Victor G. D. de Moraes says:
    0
    0

    There is more than the same. Nothing new. A small “space shuttle”. It’s not sexy.

    • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
      0
      0

      The XS-1 program is for a reusable first stage. It doesn’t, strictly speaking, HAVE to be a space-plane, but that is likely the form it will take.

    • Todd Austin says:
      0
      0

      The DARPA reference design is an F-15-sized spaceplane sporting 2 SpaceX Merlin-1D engines. I’m not sure where you would put the fuel, but man, that would be a heck of a ride.

      http://aviationweek.com/awi

  2. J C says:
    0
    0

    OK, I realize that we have more than one kind of automobile, airplane, etc. But do we really need Boeing to build their version of an X37 sitting atop a Falcon 9R? This is pretty much off-the-shelf; hardly DARPA’s specialty.

    If I were the suspicious type, I’d say Boeing has found somebody to fund their development costs for a reusable launcher to compete with SpaceX.

    • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
      0
      0

      The XS-1 program is for a low-cost reusable first stage. The intent is to launch very small payloads into orbit with a very small expendable 2nd stage. It doesn’t, strictly speaking, HAVE to be a space-plane, but that is likely the form it will take.

      This is NOT to develop a spaceplane like the X-37B

      • J C says:
        0
        0

        OK, I get it. This is Werner Von Braun’s flyback booster, brought forward 50 years. That makes it a little more understandable. It might be nice to have more than one launch provider who could build a reusable first stage. In that case it will be interesting to see the comparison between Boeing’s approach and SpaceX’s.

        • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
          0
          0

          it’s more along the lines of Virgin Galactic’s “Launcher One” idea, or XCOR’s Lynx Mark III concept. i’m a bit surprised neither put in a bid for this program, actually. some of the concept artwork for the XS-1 program was very Lynx-like. however, the payload size DARPA is looking at (4,000 lb) is larger than either could put in orbit.

          if the picture in this article is any indication, it looks like Boeing has dusted off its old X-33 competition blueprints. That or the image of it was used as a stock picture for the article.

          • duheagle says:
            0
            0

            Actually, both XCOR and Virgin Galactic are involved in the XS-1 program. XCOR is teamed up with fellow Mojave-based NewSpace company Masten and Virgin Galactic is teamed up with Northrop-Grumman (Scaled Composites). So Mojave has two-thirds of the teams. The other is Seattle-based Boeing-Blue Origin.

            My money is on the XCOR-Masten team to come up with the least expensive design. Neither company is accustomed to living off the fat of the land. The other teams each consist of a legacy aerospace contractor teamed with a NewSpace company founded by a billionaire. If you want something designed to be cheap, people who’ve had to scramble for every dime are going to bring superior habits of mind to the contest.

          • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
            0
            0

            you’re right, i noticed later in another article that there are 3 teams competing, though i had read a few that made it sound like it was a done deal that Boeing got the contract for it.

            my bad on that, i should have read a bit more thoroughly.

            like most DARPA projects this one looks to be interesting 🙂

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            How come DARPA doesn’t get the congressional micromanagement treatment? It’s not fair. My money also on XCOR because of their LOX/hydrocarbon engine experience. Hybrid propulsion will not cut it when you need rapid turnaround and hydrogen is too bulky.

          • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
            0
            0

            they already have the Lynx MkIII in mind for just this sort of application (though they’d need to scale it up a bit for a 4,000 lb payload). It will be interesting to see if they-jump start the development of that thanks to this DARPA program.

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            I wish i knew why NASA isn’t interested. Also, isn’t the Lynx a manned vehicle? Can they automate it for this mission?

          • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
            0
            0

            I’m sure NASA is interested. there’s probably lots of small Earth-observation missions that they could launch.

            and you have a very good point. i didn’t even think about that.

            actually, eliminating the need for a crew pressure vessel and the weight of windows, seats, manual flight controls, life support units, etc. … that would boost the amount of payload it could put in orbit straight off. naturally you’d offset some of that with the electronics and hardware you need for automated flight, but there’s enough left over…

            it’s still a substantial redesign. it would still be an essentially all new vehicle, just based on an existing spaceframe.

        • DTARS says:
          0
          0

          Sure would have been nice if Boeing did this thirty forty years ago. I wonder why they’re considering such things now 🙂

  3. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    The question of whether powered vertical landing or gliding horizontal landing is the most practical recovery method for a reusable booster is one of the central questions in rocket science today. A few years ago I would have sided with the winged booster, a concept at least as old as von Braun. Musk has demonstrated that landing vertically just might be a more practical choice.

    • richard_schumacher says:
      0
      0

      Dragging wings into space was never a good idea. A spacecraft that can land only on a runway is rather like an airplane that can land only on a railroad track.

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        The AF project is for a booster rather than a spacecraft, but it is a valid point. A lifting body like Dreamchaser has much greater crossrange during entry, so it can land up to 1000 miles to either side of the orbital track, but this comes at the price of heavier empty weight.

        • DTARS says:
          0
          0

          Sure would be nice if they would build a first stage booster with fly back wings and put it to the test.

          Heavier empty weight. Could it be off set by needing less fuel?

          • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
            0
            0

            a winged booster will require MORE fuel – because you need to launch the weight of the wings.

            the only thing the wings are good for is allowing the stage to glide back to the launch site.

            there have been scores of ideas for winged flyback / glideback boosters over the decades. none have been put into practice because of the hit to payload that wings incur.

            wings makes some sense in this application because of the small scale of the project – a max of 4,000 lb to orbit – and the requirement for rapid reuse of the first stage – 10 launches in 10 days.

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            For a booster the mass penalty of wings is much less than for an upper stage or spacecraft. The situation is complex. Without a flying (even if suborbital and subscale) VTOHL booster prototype the practicality and cost of operation is difficult to predict. Systems engineering only works when you’ve done it before.

          • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
            0
            0

            that’s a good point. there is less mass penalty for a mere booster, though this is for a first stage.

            it’ll be interesting to watch the competition and see if all 3 use wings or if any go for a VTVL 1st stage booster.

      • Jackalope3000 says:
        0
        0

        Runways are everywhere and they seldom are immersed in salt water.

        • richard_schumacher says:
          0
          0

          One problem is that the neighbors of very few existing runways will allow you to launch your 160 dB rocket from anywhere near the runway. It is of little operational value to have lots of potential landing places that you cannot easily leave; they might as well be covered with salt water.