Lockheed Martin Tests New Spacecraft Prototype

Hmmzis writes to tell us that Lockheed Martin is using Spaceport America to test a new prototype spacecraft. The prototype is only about one-fifth the size of the projected production model which promises to deliver satellites into orbit at a cheaper cost. "It looks a bit like the space shuttle and would fly to space and return the same way. But even the big version would not carry people, just satellites. The goal is to get to orbit faster and cheaper thanks to an automated reusable spacecraft run by its own computers and just a handful of people for a launch crew."

Comments

Prior Art?

[stoolpigeon]

I could swear I saw an Estes sticker on the side of that rocket.

Before you ask...

[RobertB-DC]

Yes, there really is a Truth or Consequences, New Mexico, home of Spaceport America. It used to be called by the less-than-distinctive moniker "Hot Springs". When the town changed its name as a promotional stunt for a popular radio game show in 1950, they liked the new name so much they kept it. New Mexico rocks.

Automated

[calebt3]

The goal is to get to orbit faster and cheaper thanks to an automated reusable spacecraft run by its own computers and just a handful of people for a launch crew. Of course automated systems would be better for launching satellites.
There is no need for: Retaining an atmosphere
Heating/Cooling
Recyling water (or even bringing water in the first place)
Food
Multiple/redundant backups for life support
Radiation shielding (at least not as much)
Fuel to hoist it all up.

Re:Automated

[vrmlguy]

Most importantly, no need to worry about the spacecraft blowing up.
http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_8705_002A_&page_name=Chapter3

3.9 Crew and Passenger Survival

3.9.1 The space system shall provide the crew and passengers with the capability for emergency egress to a safe haven during prelaunch activities ((Requirement 34469).).

3.9.2 The space system shall provide emergency egress, safe haven, and rescue post touchdown ((Requirement 34470).).

3.9.3 The space system shall provide crew and passenger survival modes throughout the ascent and on-orbit profile (from hatch closure until atmosphere entry interface) in the following order of precedence ((Requirement 34471).):

Abort.
Escape by retaining the crew and passengers encapsulated in a portion of the vehicle that can reenter without crew or passenger fatality or permanent disability.
Escape by removing the crew and passengers from the vehicle.

3.9.4 The program shall ensure that ascent survival modes can be successfully accomplished during any ascent failure mode including, but not limited to, complete loss of thrust, complete loss of control, and catastrophic booster failure at any point during ascent ((Requirement 34473).).

3.9.5 The space system shall provide crew and passenger survival modes throughout the descent profile (from entry interface through landing) in the following order of precedence ((Requirement 34474).):

Design features that increase tolerance to loss of critical functions such that landing can still be accomplished.
Escape.

3.9.6 The program shall ensure that the descent survival modes can be successfully accomplished for loss of critical functions including, but not limited to, loss of active attitude control and loss of primary power ((Requirement 34476).). And a bit later:

3.12 Flight Termination

3.12.1 Flight termination shall include features that allow sufficient time for abort or escape prior to activation of the destruct system ((Requirement 34505).). These things can really add to the cost of a vehicle.

Re:Automated

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I think the reusable spacecraft is a dubious idea, at least having the final stage be reusable. The weight added to be able to survive reentry and land is still significant. Even if you don't have a passenger compartment, there's still the weight of the wings, as well as the weight of all the thermal protection materials to protect the entire spacecraft. Then there's the structure needed to handle that extra weight, and the extra fuel needed to lift that extra weight.

Re:Automated

[holywarrior21c]

There is no need for: Retaining an atmosphere Heating/Cooling Recyling water (or even bringing water in the first place) I get your point but few things are necessary on unmanned ships. Many equipments require proper heating and cooling. water is excellent source of coolant and also used in heating. In this process water is often recycled so it doesn't have to carry more unecessarilly.

Take a look at this!

[StefanJ]

From the 1971 Centuri Engineering catalog, their concept Space Shuttle model.

Re:Take a look at this!

[Provocateur]

It must be a joke. I mean /. with 3 rocket stories in one day? 'Lockheed tests new rocket' 'Fedora 9 cleared for launch' and 'IBM pilot program for internal Mac use'

This is too much, even for an armchair rocket scientist. (Hey Stephen Hawking is a wheelchair physicist, so we could be on the same level.)

On the dole

[dj245]

"On April 22 Sierra County residents will vote on a quarter-cent sales tax to help pay for the spaceport. Neighboring Dona Ana County has already approved a similar tax, and Otero County has yet to schedule a vote."

I think this should be the story here. Why should state taxpayers dumping money in Lockheed's pockets? I have never seen a subsidy or bounty (as they were called long ago) that did more good than harm.

Yeah I know, its America and that the way things work now. But that doesn't mean these actions shouldn't provoke outcry.

Re:On the dole

[eln]

The spaceport is intended to be a complex from which various companies can launch and test spacecraft, not Lockheed Martin specifically. So, it's sort of like taxpayers funding an airport, which is certainly not unprecedented. The difference, of course, is it's funding a location from which to operate an industry that may not take off (pardon the pun) for decades, if ever. So, there is a definite risk.

However, having spent a lot of time in Las Cruces, which is less than an hour south, I can tell you that the spaceport has brought a lot more interest to science education in the area, so it has provided at least some short term benefit.

Re:How about the reverse trip

[calebt3]

Because it would take extensive maneuvering to get near and catch a simple bolt. Then you have more extensive maneuvering to get the nut a hundred feet away. Rinse and Repeat.

Re:How about the reverse trip

[Z34107]

I guess, as long as a wayward piece of junk doesn't fall on some prized property of (America|Russia). If it takes out some villager in Africa?

You think any piece of junk is going to survive re-entry?

A few pieces must; how often do you think it happens?

Suppose that by some miracle, a piece of space junk survives falling several miles through the atmosphere. Does water cover most of our planet, or does Africa cover most of our planet?

Such inflammatory language over a problem that doesn't exist. If I say I still don't think it's worth the effort, will you accuse me of bigotry?

Re:Spaceport, my arse

[iso-cop]

There is a lot more than you think going on a Spaceport America. It hosted the 2006 X-Prize Cup as a start. Even though it is still under construction, UP Aerospace and Virgin Galactic have made their home at these facilities and launched a number of suborbital flights as milestones toward viable commercial space transport. Other interesting ideas like the Rocket Racing League are springing up, which are not orbital, but interesting nonetheless. In case you are wondering, I am a New Mexico resident but have no affiliation whatsoever to any of these endeavors.

Time mag's man of the year should be

[WindBourne]

Elon musk. The reason is that he has single handley been responsible for changing MAJOR companies. He starts tesla and suddenly Chevy has no choice but to do the volt. Before some of the naysayers spring up, google for tesla and volt and interview. You will find that the man at GM behind the volt fully credits Musk as pushing alive the volt when the CEO had actually killed the program (and it was at the right time).
Likewise, spacex is the company who was pushing out rockets that will take only a handful of ppl to run it. L-Mart has NO incentive to do this. For proof, simply read entering space by zubrin who was told by top executives that they would never willingly walk away from their rockets; far too much money. But check falcon1 costing only 7 million against ULA's smallest costing something like 90 million and even orbital small pegasus with smaller payload costing 30 million. ULA/LMart has no choice but to do something similar. No doubt this will be expanded for man. Why? becuase of bigelow.

Finally, Musk is making solar PV cost about half the money by changing how installs occur.

All in all, this import shows exactly WHY we need ppl like him.

Thank you elon.

Re:Time mag's man of the year should be

[DerekLyons]

Likewise, spacex is the company who was pushing out rockets that will take only a handful of ppl to run it

They may be 'pushing them out', but they sure as heck aren't flying them. Two (much delayed) launches to date - two failures. No announced date for the third launch.
 
 

L-Mart has NO incentive to do this.

Other than NASA's COTS initiative, which involves not only SpaceX but OSC and a half a dozen others. Said COTS initiative just a _big_ boost as NASA announced today that they will not be asking Congress for money to purchase Progress launches, but instead wishes to apply the money to commercial/COTS programs. Then there is Bigelow on the horizon, and Virgin Aerospace too... Then there is EADS and a couple of Russian companies pushing low cost access too. Then there is Northrup Grumman who just bought out Scaled Composites... LockMart has a lot of reasons to do this, and SpaceX is just one of them.
 
 

For proof, simply read entering space by zubrin who was told by top executives that they would never willingly walk away from their rockets; far too much money.

 
Need I point out that Entering Space is nearly a decade old? The aerospace industry has changed radically in that time, especially in the last five years. (And anyone whose spent any time around the space industry knows Zubrin says many thing. Some of them even have a passing resemblance to reality.)

Re:How about the reverse trip

[scarpa]

The junk is far more likely to damage new or existing satellites than any African villager.

Re:Winged Spacecraft Are a Waste of Time, Mostly

[iamlucky13]

For the record, this isn't a winged spacecraft. It's a winged first stage. The article didn't catch on to it, but if you look up info on the Ares-Falcon proposal the Air Force has been mulling around for years, you'll see this is probably the same project. Weight is much less of a premium (still somewhat, however) on the first stage, because it spends less of the flight attached. Generally the first stage only contributes less 25% of the delta-V, meaning it only contributes 1/16 of final kinetic energy of the payload. So the weight of the wings doesn't hurt much.

Additionally, a first stage doesn't need a real thermal protection system. It's one less element to lift and greatly simplifies reuse. Those pointy wings on the Lockheed demonstrator would be terrible from a heat-flow standpoint anyway.

The tradeoff of weight allows controlled flyback, which makes recovery of the first stage far simpler than fishing it out of the water and cleaning it (surviving that requires parachutes and flotation provisions anyway, which although lighter than wings, are still a mass penalty). Getting a structurally intact first stage is a lot simpler than a structurally intact orbiter.

So Lockheed actually is persuing an alternative approach to reusability here.

By the way, SpaceX claims they plan to recover, refurbish, and reuse the first stage of both their Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 rockets, and the second stage of the Falcon 9. I'm honestly not sure how they intend to do the second stage, but the first stage parachutes to the ocean and is picked up by a recovery ship. Their one attempt at doing it so far failed.