Japan Tests Reusable Rocket

HobbySpacer writes: "Japan's ISAS (Institute for Space and Aeronautical Science) is testing a sub-orbital rocketship called the Reusable Rocket Vehicle Test (RVT). A video of a recent test flight is available. (Alternate source.) According to Space News, the vertical-takeoff-vertical-landing vehicle was built on an annual budget of $400k and assisted by volunteers from the Japan Rocket Society. The highest flight so far is 25m but the priority is technology development and low-cost operations, i.e. learning to run a rocket vehicle like a jet. Gradually, the flight envelope will be expanded and later more powerful engines and lighter components will be tested." Low budgets, encouraging volunteer participants -- now that's the way to run a space program!

"Like the DC-X project, the approach is a throwback to the successful X projects of the 1950s when great progress was made by progressing in small steps with small dedicated teams and modest budgets. (As with the X-15, at least 2 or 3 vehicles should be built because if you don't lose at least one during testing, you aren't pushing hard enough.) Perhaps the U.S. will return to this approach, as well, since the mega, 10 bleeding edge technologies at once, all or nothing approach of the X-33 failed miserably."

Comments

On making space cheaper.

[euroderf]

Okay, I know it is a big issue just now, how to make space travel and exploration cheaper and more available to the masses.

This is why I was interested to read an article at the somewhat notorious discussion site adequacy.org detailing how to make space travel and exploration less elitist and more widespread.

This article shows and provides backing for widening the franchise of people we send to space. Meanwhile, this one shows the possible threats we the human race may face from embarking on our seeming destiny among the stars (NB: Both these articles are controversial in nature)

My own opinion is that space needs a public-private partnership in order to best take advantage of the best the state and the private sector has to offer. All nations realise this to some extent just now, but the Japanese and Europeans much more so than the americans. We need to do similar here in the USA.
--

"If you don't lose one..."

[Masker]

Well, I don't know about you, but I think that the pilots of experimental aircraft would not agree with the "if you don't lose at least one during testing, you aren't pushing hard enough." comment.

In fact, on the X-15 page you link to, you give a prime example of why they might object:

On November 15, 1967 he made his seventh and final flight in X-15 No. 3. He achieved a maximum speed of 3561 mph and a maximum altitude of 266,000 feet (50.38 miles). Upon re-entry the vehicle entered a spin at a speed of Mach 5 (five times the speed of sound). At approximately 18,600 feet the vehicle began to dive followed by high frequency pitch oscillations. The vehicled isintegrated when the forces reached 15 Gs (15 times Earth's gravity), killing Adams.

I'd have to say that, of course more than one prototype should be built, but it's rather insensitive to snidely say that "if you don't lose one during testing, you're not pushing hard enough".

Re:carmack

[John Carmack]

Yes, this is very similar to what I am working on.

www.armadilloaerospace.com

Their current vehicle is a good deal larger than ours, has an aeroshell, and significantly, uses liquid hydrogen / liquid oxygen, a much more potent and difficult propellant than the hydrogen peroxide we use.

On the other hand, my project has been a lot faster and cheaper. I have spent about $50k and we have been working on it for nine months, versus their $400k and four years.

Our first up scale vehicle is going to be ready in a few months. It won't go very high or fast, but we can carry a person on it...

Next year, at the very least, we will have a supersonic manned rocket ship.

John Carmack