Slashdot Mirror

I looks like the hybrid solid/liquid engine isn't going to push SS2 to 100km altitude. The original compound ran rough and it doesn't have a high enough specific impulse. The new compound explodes. Dick Rutan demonstrated a Long-EZ equipped with a liquid fueled engine in 2001. I think it is time to go back to XCOR and ask about a bigger engine.

I guess you are referring to a company like XCor, who is building that "liquid fueled space plane" from scratch?

It is happening, and XCor is hardly the only company doing stuff like this (or even the most famous of them). While their main vehicle is admittedly a sub-orbital vehicle, they are on track to be able to take this vehicle into orbit eventually or something like it using the same basic technology set. Jeff Greason is somebody who I've come to admire over the years and I think he is certainly capable (and does!) of understanding orbital mechanics, the rocket equation, and "critical safety systems" needed for manned spaceflight.

This is one of the things that really sort of makes my head scratch here, as there are so many other ways to get into space including companies who have been working on this problem in terms of a reasonable civilian solution to get it to work that I don't understand why any sort of group of private investors would want to resurrect the dead with restarting the Shuttle program again. It boggle my mind even thinking about it.

I agree. Why should you have to pay tax dollars on this?

But at the same time, why should you prevent me through silly regulations (hint, ITAR... look it up if you like) and government policies that explicitly keep me from experimenting with or even attempting to build rockets on my own dime. The question isn't that somebody like you needs to be able to pay for me to go into space, but rather that there are people (perhaps you aren't one of them) that explicitly want to keep me down on this rock at gunpoint and will sabotage any efforts I make in regards to getting off of this rock.

Organizations like NASA are quickly becoming a relic of the past, where the money is merely a way to have a bunch of bureaucrats spin their wheels and keep some disenchanted aerospace engineers and munitions workers busy when a war isn't going on. I certainly wouldn't cry too hard if NASA was completely de-funded and disbanded by Congress.... as if they have been making any sort of relevant progress towards cost-effective spaceflight at any time over the past 40 years anyway. Doubling the NASA budget is only going to double the number of bureaucrats working in Houston, Texas. It isn't going to get anybody off of this rock in a meaningful way.

On the other hand, there are many different private spaceflight companies with real hardware that can get people into space. We don't need a government agency to get that accomplished. Yes, government grants are nice, but it isn't needed to get this task accomplished.

For myself, if government is going to get involved at all, I'd rather they simply give a "tax holiday" for all federal taxes (corporate and personal income taxes... and other kinds too) by companies directly engaged in putting equipment into space. It would certainly be far and away more cost effective than doubling the current NASA budget, and perhaps something would actually be flying beyond Low-Earth orbit too. I definitely think that such a move would cause private space investment to roar into life in a manner that has never been seen before. The loss in taxes would be minor, and I could argue that the taxes raised from support industries would by far and away more than make up for any "lost" tax receipts to such companies.... and certainly be quite a bit less than going through the appropriations meat-grinder of the U.S. Congress.

Actually, there is very little evidence that Interorbital has produced any real hardware in the past few years. Plenty of models and drawings, but no actual hardware (let alone flight tests).

(Posted AC because I'm in the industry, and Interorbital has made themselves a pain in the past for people who say this sort of thing about them. But don't take my AC word for it: go try to find evidence they've built or flown something. If they have, there should be plenty of info, right?)

If you want real web sites, check out people like Armadillo, XCOR, Masten, or Unreasonable, for example.

Very cool but not sure it's quite as cool as the XCOR Rocket Powered Aeroplane. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MQvUCrjtmw and http://www.xcor.com/

And finally, one word: smoke! These engines don't burn nearly as clean as the nice CGI suggests, ever seen a Shuttle launch? There will be tons of smoke, making it hard to see much, and increasing the safety distances even further.

Funny I don't see any smoke in the pics of the real thing running..
http://www.xcor.com/products/engines/4A3_LOX_alcohol_rocket_engine.html
The rocket planes run on LOX and Alcohol..

Do you know what the shuttle main engiens burn? Hydrogen and Oxygen.. Hmm what does that make?? Oh yeah. Water! loads of water vapor.. The solid fuel booters are another thing alltogether and make a bit of smoke..

As I'm sure you're aware, XCOR Aerospace built both the EZ-Rocket (rocket-powered LongEZ) and the first of the Rocket Racers.

They've been mentioned here recently for the upcoming Lynx spaceplane, as well.

I will give XCOR credit for this. While I'm not the biggest fan of LOX/Methane (assuming that's what Lynx is going to use, since I know it's something XCOR has messed with; I prefer LOX/Propane because it has almost as much ISP, much higher density at 100K, and can share a common bulkhead), it does have enough ISP to reach orbit without a ridiculous scaling factor.

Actually, according to their FAQ, they'll be using LOX/Kerosene. If I understand correctly this is the same sort of fuel SpaceX uses, although of course operating on a rather different order of magnitude. It seems that the largest LOX/Kerosene engine XCOR has constructed so far was a 1,800 lbf engine back in 2003 -- anybody have back-of-the-envelope calculations on what sort of thrust XCOR needs for a suborbital spaceplane?

You forgot to mention their joint development project with NASA to develop LOX/methane fueled rocket engines and their contract with the Rocket Racing League to design and build the first generation of rocket X-Racers.

But aside from that you're right on the money. XCOR isn't some new upstart company; they've been in this business for a long time and take a long-term view towards development. Suborbital vehicle development is just the next step, not the beginning nor the end.

You forgot to mention their joint development project with NASA to develop LOX/methane fueled rocket engines and their contract with the Rocket Racing League to design and build the first generation of rocket X-Racers.

But aside from that you're right on the money. XCOR isn't some new upstart company; they've been in this business for a long time and take a long-term view towards development. Suborbital vehicle development is just the next step, not the beginning nor the end.

• XCOR isn't just some random wannabe company which recently hopped onto the "space tourism" bandwagon. They're a small (30-person) but well-respected private company noted for their expertise in building reusable liquid-fueled rocket engines.
  
• In 2001 they first flew their XCOR EZ-Rocket, which made regular demonstration flights at air shows for a few years and in 2005 set the distance record for a point-to-point rocket powered takeoff and landing.
  
• XCOR has a reputation for not tooting its own horn, instead working quietly and being rather conservative about its announcements.
  
• Their first version will go up to 61km, and they're planning on making incremental improvements to produce a second version that goes to 110km.
  
• Estimated total project cost is $10 million, with a passenger ticket price of ~$100K (half of Virgin Galactic). XCOR isn't planning on selling tickets directly to customers though, instead selling to ride operators who will deal with customer themselves.
  
• They already have a deal with a private research lab to fly multiple research flights for them each year.
  
• This quote from XCOR chief Jeff Greason explains their philosophy quite nicely: Lynx is seen by XCOR Aerospace as one piece of a larger roadmap of vehicles -- a start small and then add performance approach -- eventually culminating in a piloted orbital system, Greason said. "We've selected the basket of technologies ... technologies that we believe position us very well for the suborbital market, but also put us on the road for later, higher-performance systems," he explained.
  

As far as I can see, Scaled Composites and Xcor are the only tenants at Mojave using nitrous. SC in the HTPB hybrid from SpaceDev http://www.astronautix.com/engines/spaybrid.htm , and Xcor in its 15 and 50 Lbf motors http://www.xcor.com/products/engines/2P1_N2O_ethan e_rocket_engine.html . The latter wouldn't need a truck load of the stuff. SpaceDev is working on a lot more hybrid projects than just SC's, but their test own stand is at Capistrano. SC is both secretive about its running projects and notoriously bad about updating it web sites about what it does announce, but by now they should be ramping up for testing the motor for SS2.

This certainly throws a wrench into the "hybrids are so much safer" works. Very bad for the two dead and four hurt, I'm just hoping Rutan wasn't among them.

I'm certainly not qualified to discuss the finer technicalities of the article (I suspect that applies to most of today's comments as well), but just wanted to point out that the picture in the press release is sweet.

I don't see what their target thurst is, but one can assume it's much larger than 7,500lbf.

I don't see what their target thurst is, but one can assume it's much larger than 7,500lbf.

So the methane-oxy engine development has less to do with politics, and more to do with the practical matters of meeting the targetted design goals.

No, it has more to do with the subcontract they have with ATK to do research for NASA LINK. This pays the bills while they play with their winged rocket-plane.

For comparison, the kerosine F-1 engines on the Saturn V produced 1.5 million lbf compared to the 7,500 lbf targetted by this engine.

They were also pumping a lot more fuel and oxidizer per second (much larger m_dot). This is a small engine mounted to the back of a trailer. You could (almost) wrap your hands around it. The F-1's chamber is quite a bit bigger.

... they just don't have the funds or capabilities of NASA. Yet. They are all backed by "angel investors" from other industries who want to see private companies enter space, hence they started their own companies to try and bring commercial space into fruition:

Armadillo Aerospace (John Carmack)

Blue Origin (Jeff Bezos)

SpaceX (Elon Munsk)

XCOR(various members of RRS and others)

... you just havent looked hard enough:

xcor

blue origin (Jeff Bezos, Amazon)

spaceX

Armadillo Aerospace (John Carmack)

(Not mentioning the obvious: Virgin Galactic and Scaled Composites.)

And don't forget about America's Space Prize a $50 million dollar prize for the development of a reusable vehicle to service http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/">Bigelow Aerospace's inflatable space hotel. (Robert Bigelow owns the "Budget Suites of America" hoetl chain). Several contendors for the prize at the moment.

And actually the american government is quite progressive on commercial space travel. They have an office: the office of Commercial Space Transportation. They actually recently put out a 120+ page proposal on regulations for human spaceflight, open for suggestions from the "players". Revisions are being suggested from companies and actually heeded. The system is working quite well.

Just from discussing it with customers of mine (who pay $150,000 for a week in Vegas for 2 people, what's $150,000 to hit space?), I bet there are at least 100,000 people in the world who would pay $50,000 to travel.

I've read studies that have similar numbers of people willing to pay bigger dollar amounts. The market is there; thats why the companies listed, among others, are working on a solution.

For anyone who has done more research than I could, what are the obstacles to private research? There's a market, there's a will, so there must be a way. Who is putting the kibosh on it?

Money. Gotta get those venture capitalists to see the vision. There are safer investments than human space travel. The companies that are most likely to succeed are the ones that are self-funded (see the ones with big names next to them) or the ones that handle both commercial and govenment contracts (for example, Xcor does government research, and spaceX does government launches. It pays the bills and bolsters investor confidence.)

-everphilski-

More than the mishaps and explosions, the exciting thing about it all to me was the wide variety of people there. There were realtors selling land near the soon-to-be New Mexico Spaceport, and the Up Aerospace people who're going to inaugurate it. Carmack, Peter Diamandis, Rick Tumlinson and that bunch were all hanging out amongst everybod. There were many kids, many local residents at the event.

And though they've done it before for air-show crowds, this was the first time I'd seen the XCOR EZ-Rocket in action; truly awe-inspiring to see how easily it could maneuver. The loud rocket engines as it buzzed the crowd a few times didn't hurt the experience!

Anyway, not as exciting as if there'd been some real suborbital flights, but it looks like in just a couple of years that'll be a reality. Exciting times!

That's because that is what they are.

This is pretty sweet. The jet powered Long-EZ has been around a while, and was flown at one of the X-Prize events by Dick Rutan. There's also a jet powered Cozy, which I won't like to because it's hosted on a very small server, that looks a lot slicker but doesn't perform as well as the XCOR EZ. I saw the EZ-rocket at Oshkosh in '02, and it went like a bat outta hell.

The day of high performance jet homebuilts is upon us!

OK, maybe not, but I can dream, right? Ever since I saw the Microjet for the firs time, I've been waiting for this. Now it's closer than ever.

-dave

http://www.xcor.com/engines.html X-cor has been making "throatless" motors for some time. Very nice and simple.

EzRocket is a great, great testbed for a restartable, reliable, affordable, commercially available rocket engine.

And the flight test series they conducted really did push the state-of-the-art in rocket propulsion, in all of the arenas above

However , the EZRocket testbed - a converted Rutan LongEze homebuild aircraft - is in *no way* a suitable platform for development as a honest-to-goodness Space Rocket. It's not even got a pressurised cockpit, for instance.

XCor do have sub-orbital transport plans - the Xerus vehicle - but this is at the concept stage: it's not a complete design let alone having any bent metal!

xcor has an actual working craft which has flown a number manned test flights already. It is being piloted by Dick Rutan. They have a working 1800lb thrust engine which exceeds anything armadillo has. They also already have a launch license.

It's a bit silly for carmack to say he doesnt think anyone else is closer than him.

xcor has an actual working craft which has flown a number manned test flights already. It is being piloted by Dick Rutan. They have a working 1800lb thrust engine which exceeds anything armadillo has. They also already have a launch license.

It's a bit silly for carmack to say he doesnt think anyone else is closer than him.

xcor has an actual working craft which has flown a number manned test flights already. It is being piloted by Dick Rutan. They have a working 1800lb thrust engine which exceeds anything armadillo has. They also already have a launch license.

It's a bit silly for carmack to say he doesnt think anyone else is closer than him.

xcor has an actual working craft which has flown a number manned test flights already. It is being piloted by Dick Rutan. They have a working 1800lb thrust engine which exceeds anything armadillo has. They also already have a launch license.

It's a bit silly for carmack to say he doesnt think anyone else is closer than him.

Both Scaled Composites and XCOR Aerospace (the two leading competitors in the X-Prize competition) currently fly out of Mojave Airport.

Scaled Composites is taking part in the X-Prize competition, but XCOR is not. They are developing their products to break into a market of suborbital payloads and microsatellites, as well as the passenger market (they are currently under contract with Space Adventures to provide the space travel experience to "adventure travelers" for $98,000 when the technology is ready). You can read more about their goals on their website.

The X-Prize website hosts a list of the teams competing for the X-Prize.

Ummm... XCOR is not a competitor for the X-Prize. They are a private organization that is possibly capable of suborbital manned spaceflight, but they are not listed on the list of X-Prize teams.

I just want to clear up some confusion generated by inaccuracies both in the MSNBC story and the slashdot post:

The vehicle we have received a licence for, as stated in our press release is not a full suborbital vehicle and is not an X-Prize competitor. It is an intermediate technology research platform to continue development of engines and related systems that began flight testing on the EZ-Rocket, our currently flying manned rocket powered airplane. It is also noted that this new vehicle, the Sphinx, has not yet been built. Quoth the press release: "It is helpful that RLV companies can obtain their launch licenses during vehicle design, prior to committing capital to build a vehicle."

A stated before, we are not an X-Prize competitor, due to among other things, a conflict in the time scale of the X-Prize and our business development plan, as well as the planned configuration of our current suborbital vehicle design. XCOR is focused on revenue generation. However, we fully support the X-Prize and offer technology and services to X-Prize entrants, as well as moral and legislative support.

Mike Massee XCOR Aerospace www.xcor.com

Sound levels are indeed very important, not only for employee occupational hazard levels but for sound levels reaching out in to the town of Mojave and the rest of the airport. We like to be good neighbors. We also had to provide estimated sound levels as part of the Mojave Civilian Flight test Center's application to become the nation's first inland space port.

Fortunately, we're within restricted airspace near Edwards Air Force Base where you are allowed to go supersonic and make sonic booms, one of the few places in America where you can do this. The people who live here are used to the occasional BANG! BANG! in the morning as the boys and girls in the fighter jets paint circles into the skies overhead. The rocket taking off is nowhere near the level or type of sound generated by the sonic booms (good booms make your wall art crooked) and our own booms are minimalized on the ground by the fact that the aircraft is at a 70 degree climb angle.

We've been able to come up with a pretty accurate graph of noise falloff. Once we begin testing the next generation of engines on the next generation of flying vehicle we'll have an even better idea of what to expect for the full suborbital flight profile.

--Mike M., XCOR

Well you're welcome...I was just heading out the door when I hit reload one last time, and by golly there's the press release from yesterday. So I decided to stick around and blab. :) Meaningful info is indeed a good thing, brings down the s/n ratio. Education is part of our mission, which is why we started things like the Aerospace reference library and why we take our 15 lb-thrust N2O-Ethane 'teacart' engine to conventions and fire it for people.

When the EZ-Rocket is actually in flight, the noise from the ground isn't any different from a fighter jet. And inside the cockpit, our test pilot Dick Rutan says that the engine isn't any louder than a jet with the canopy closed and the earphones on.

The key thing to remember is that the engines that will go on the suborbital vehicle are larger and have much lower noise frequency components. The XR4K5 1800 lb-thrust engine has a low rumble well within the safety margins of just wearing headphones. It has a really beautiful sound when it runs. The 400 lb-thrust EZ-Rocket engine, which is the one that the sound levels refer to, sounds more like full spectrum white noise.

the loudest noise from a rocket engine can be heard when you are standing approximately 45 degrees from the thrust vector (45 from straight behind) and the quietest point is directly in front of it. (in the cockpit)

One of the many advantages of using liquid fuel engines is far less vibration and audable noise variation when compared to a solid fuel engine. Ever read about a NASA astronaut's experiences during the solid fuel burn on a shuttle launch? O.K. for heavy lifters but perhaps not for space tourists. :)

As a side note, I am always amazed at concertgoers for not wearing hearing protection for something that sounds almost as loud as a rocket engine.

--Mike

So they have a license to launch something they haven't built or even finished designing? I think my money is still on Burt Rutan.

Link to their website. :) More Q&A about XCOR suborbital stuff on our site: here.

I am not yet convinced that the technology exists to make space travel inexpensive enough for any organization that does not have the capability to spend hundreds of millions without seeing a return

Consider that there are multiple private organizations, on a relatively shoestring budgets, in the USA alone, who are doing their own stuff in this area. Check for Microcosm, Flometrics, even a department of a university, not to mention John Carmack's company, XCOR, Burt Rutan's Scaled, all regularly mentioned on the Slashdot. Add other countries - in Europe, for example - in short, a lot of guys are thinking different than you do.

And you won't believe how unsophisticated by today's standards is the technology of the first rockets. Just imagine, they were made out of steel, with almost no computers in the whole lifecycle of devices! It's literally a technology of times half a century back. It's not a technological issues anymore, you just use off-the-shelf components, well, for most of things you need. And you have tons of knowledge for what and how and why to do and not to do. Having all this in, one can wonder, why we still don't fly economically :) .

I know that their design is a long way off, but they have been spending lots of time on a their motor designs. They've even been testing them on a Rutan designed Long EZ(modified, of course). Does anyone know if XCOR is officially an X-prize team? They're not on the list...

I know that their design is a long way off, but they have been spending lots of time on a their motor designs. They've even been testing them on a Rutan designed Long EZ(modified, of course). Does anyone know if XCOR is officially an X-prize team? They're not on the list...

In the incredibly unlikely event that LOX vents into the cockpit, Just crack open the canopy for a bit. The EZ-Rocket is a subsonic vehicle limited by the do-not-exceed speed of the airframe (about 195 knots) so you're not going all that fast, especially when gliding.

Also, there is a large manual lever the pilot can pull to dump the LOX out the back. We've actually done this on a safe abort flight, to lighten the airplane for an early landing. (go here for details about that flight.)

(For casual readers, note that we are talking about the currently flying test-bed, the EZ-Rocket, and not the Xerus supersonic, suborbital space vehicle)

In the incredibly unlikely event that LOX vents into the cockpit, Just crack open the canopy for a bit. The EZ-Rocket is a subsonic vehicle limited by the do-not-exceed speed of the airframe (about 195 knots) so you're not going all that fast, especially when gliding.

Also, there is a large manual lever the pilot can pull to dump the LOX out the back. We've actually done this on a safe abort flight, to lighten the airplane for an early landing. (go here for details about that flight.)

(For casual readers, note that we are talking about the currently flying test-bed, the EZ-Rocket, and not the Xerus supersonic, suborbital space vehicle)

Their engine is tested horizontally, mounted on a wheeled trailer. See image

Close study of the Igniter shows that a key component is a Champion Y-8 Spark Plug?

This is Rocket Science, man!

indigo asserts:

[Bounty for private space flight] not worth it to any single company right now. Only boeing has the resources,

Not true, first off, if such bounties were available, companies (or consoritums of companies) will be coming out of the woodwork to try for them. Secondly, there are companies other than Boeing there right now that are in a position to start working on this, big ones like Lockheed Martin, to little ones like Scaled Composites and XCOR. A bounty for successful milestones would make VC funds more accessible to companies with good ideas.

The problem I see with this is: a bounty for successful milestones would also make VC funds more accessible to companies with bad ideas. Companies working with a focus on the bottom line cut corners; in space travel, corners cut cost lives. Seven astronauts who knew the risks was bad enough; I don't want to see some moron going up on a half designed rocket, having a guidance failure and crashing in a crowded city center, taking out people who were just trying to go to work.

Out of curiousity, has Carmack created a working rocket or achieved flight at least? Because some companies are already off the terra firma... http://xcor.com/

As of yet, none of this is happening even though it is all very possible and we are just as capable of doing right now.

Actually, it's almost all happening, or being worked on (that is, if you want it that bad, you can go help make it happen, for you and everyone else, and get paid while doing so). Taking your examples:

I would also love free art,

I don't know about those who try to make their living from art, but I know that most of what art I have created has been given away. Granted, it's low production value, but it's been good enough for the people I made it for. There are a lot of indie artists out there who just give away their art - some of it very good, if you know what you're into and where to look for it.

obtainable medicines for those that need it,

Being worked on. (Aspirin, for instance, once cost a lot more than it does now. Or do you claim that even aspirin is too expensive for the masses? Follow the same trend with other medicines, and give it enough time.)

not charged to use the airwaves around me,

Talk to the FCC. They're floating that very proposal right now. (For instance, if no one's using a certain TV channel in a given area, the corresponding bandwidth becomes unlicensed in that area unless and until someone buys it.)

to be able to travel into space,

Being worked on.

and to be able to modify my own DNA at my whim,

I suspect you'd prefer to know WTF you're modifying first. That's the approach those who are working on this are taking: first, make sure those who would do it know what edits will have what results, then make it easy/cheap/free for everyone to do it. In short, being worked on.

--Mike
www.xcor.com

--Mike
www.xcor.com

--Mike
www.xcor.com

Check out Rotary Rockets..

Last I heard the Rotory Rocket company's assets had been seized, including the Roton prototype, and that XCOR had bought at least some of them, including the IP rights to the design.

From looking at the XCOR Website they've pretty much shelved the Roton in favour of their own suborbital spaceplane design, the Xerus, which they're prototyping with the EZ-Rocket.

In any case it looks like the Roton is dead, which is a shame, it was a novel and interesting design. Which isn't to say it was going to work when they scaled it up of course...

Check out Rotary Rockets..

Last I heard the Rotory Rocket company's assets had been seized, including the Roton prototype, and that XCOR had bought at least some of them, including the IP rights to the design.

From looking at the XCOR Website they've pretty much shelved the Roton in favour of their own suborbital spaceplane design, the Xerus, which they're prototyping with the EZ-Rocket.

In any case it looks like the Roton is dead, which is a shame, it was a novel and interesting design. Which isn't to say it was going to work when they scaled it up of course...