DARPA Experimental Spaceplane (XS-1)

"Boeing to Design XS-1 Experimental Spaceplane For DARPA"
Posted July 15, 2014 11:34 AM

Source:
http://spaceref.biz/agencies/darpa-1/boeing-to-design-xs-1-experimental-spaceplane-for-darpa.html

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.

"Developing a vehicle that launches small payloads more affordably is a priority for future U.S. Defense Department operations," said Steve Johnston, director of Boeing's Phantom Works Advanced Space Exploration division. "Boeing brings a combination of proven experience in developing launch systems and reusable space vehicles, along with unparalleled expertise in the development and fielding of highly operable and cost-effective transportation systems."

Under the $4 million preliminary design contract, Boeing plans to work on a reusable first stage launch vehicle capable of carrying and deploying an upper stage to launch small satellite payloads of 3,000 to 5,000 pounds (1,361 kg to 2,268 kg) into low-Earth orbit.

"Our design would allow the autonomous booster to carry the second stage and payload to high altitude and deploy them into space. The booster would then return to Earth, where it could be quickly prepared for the next flight by applying operation and maintenance principles similar to modern aircraft." said Will Hampton, Boeing XS-1 program manager. "Drawing on our other innovative technologies, Boeing intends to provide a concept that uses efficient, streamlined ground infrastructure and improves the turnaround time to relaunch this spacecraft for subsequent missions."

DARPA plans to hold a Phase II competition next year for the follow-on production order to build the vehicle and conduct demonstration flights.

A unit of The Boeing Company, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is one of the world's largest defense, space and security businesses specializing in innovative and capabilities-driven customer solutions, and the world's largest and most versatile manufacturer of military aircraft. Headquartered in St. Louis, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is a $33 billion business with 56,000 employees worldwide. Follow us on Twitter: @BoeingDefense.
 

Attachments

  • ooMSF14-0044-1_XS-1.jpg
    ooMSF14-0044-1_XS-1.jpg
    347.5 KB · Views: 399
Uploaded on Jul 9, 2014

DARPA created its Experimental Spaceplane (XS-1) program to help create a new paradigm for more routine, responsive and affordable space operations. The program aims to develop a fully-reusable unmanned vehicle that would provide aircraft-like access to space and deploy small satellites to orbit using expendable upper stages. XS-1 seeks to deploy small satellites faster and more affordably, and develop technology for next-generation hypersonic vehicles.

http://youtu.be/67tbhFzh1OM
 
WORK COMMENCES ON EXPERIMENTAL SPACEPLANE (XS-1) DESIGNS


July 15, 2014


Three companies get the nod to outline their visions of DARPA’s next-generation spaceplane


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.


DARPA created its Experimental Spaceplane (XS-1) program to help overcome these challenges and create a new paradigm for more routine, responsive and affordable space operations. In an important step toward that goal, DARPA has awarded prime contracts for Phase 1 of XS-1 to three companies:


  • The Boeing Company (working with Blue Origin, LLC)
  • Masten Space Systems (working with XCOR Aerospace)
  • Northrop Grumman Corporation (working with Virgin Galactic)


“We chose performers who could prudently integrate existing and up-and-coming technologies and operations, while making XS-1 as reliable, easy-to-use and cost-effective as possible,” Jess Sponable, DARPA program manager. “We’re eager to see how their initial designs envision making spaceflight commonplace—with all the potential military, civilian and commercial benefits that capability would provide.”


The XS-1 program aims to develop a fully-reusable unmanned vehicle that would provide aircraft-like access to space and deploy small satellites to orbit using expendable upper stages. XS-1 seeks to deploy small satellites faster and more affordably, and develop technology for next-generation hypersonic vehicles.


XS-1 envisions that a reusable first stage would fly to hypersonic speeds at a suborbital altitude. At that point, one or more expendable upper stages would separate and deploy a satellite into Low Earth Orbit (LEO). The reusable first stage would then return to earth, land and be prepared for the next flight. Modular components, durable thermal protection systems and automatic launch, flight and recovery systems should significantly reduce logistical needs, enabling rapid turnaround between flights.


Key XS-1 technical goals include flying 10 times in 10 days, flying to Mach 10+ at least once and launching a representative small payload to orbit. The program also seeks to reduce the cost of access to space for 3,000- to 5,000-pound payloads to less than $5 million per flight.


In Phase 1 of XS-1, DARPA intends to evaluate the technical feasibility and methods for achieving the program’s goals. Tasks currently include:


Develop the XS-1 demonstration vehicle
Identify and conduct critical risk reduction of core component technologies and processes
Develop a technology maturation plan for fabrication and flight test of XS-1 system capabilities
DARPA expects the performers to explore alternative technical approaches from the perspectives of feasibility, performance, system design and development cost and operational cost. They must also assess potential suitability for near-term transition opportunities to military, civil and commercial users. These opportunities include both launching small payloads per the program goals as well as others, such as supporting future hypersonic testing and a future space access aircraft.


# # #


Associated images posted on www.darpa.mil and video posted at www.youtube.com/darpatv may be reused according to the terms of the DARPA User Agreement, available here: http://go.usa.gov/nYr.


Tweet @darpa
Source: http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2014/07/15.aspx
 

Attachments

  • XS-1_1_1080x810.png
    XS-1_1_1080x810.png
    547.2 KB · Views: 342
  • XS-1_2_1080x810.png
    XS-1_2_1080x810.png
    1 MB · Views: 289
sferrin said:
FighterJock said:
A very cool find B) I wonder if it would see the light of day as flyable hardware and not just a paper exercise.

I'd put the odds somewhere between "hell no" and "BWAH HAH HAH HA". :'(

Since we've gotten really good at railguns (General Atomics has anyway) wouldn't it be more cost effective to have a combo rail launch, to scramjet to solid booster platform. You'd have to find that balance between the maximum G load your sat package can take and the size of your humongous rail gun and its cost. After the pain of the initial expenditure, the launches should be pretty cheap.
 
A rocket engine and lots of fuel is way cheaper and more flexible than a huge railgun and a scramjet.
 
mz said:
A rocket engine and lots of fuel is way cheaper and more flexible than a huge railgun and a scramjet.

A railgun could spit out launches like a bus schedule. That would be more than all the space launch sites on earth combined.
 
sublight is back said:
A railgun could spit out launches like a bus schedule. That would be more than all the space launch sites on earth combined.

Yeah, but space launch sites typically involve launch vehicles that can actually attain orbit. A railgun cannot. 2.5 km/sec is *really* *fast* for a cannon, but it's only a small fraction of the 8 km/sec needed for orbital velocity. So you'd still need to generate more than 90% of the kinetic energy via the "upper stage." And scramjets just seem to seriously suck. Using an airbreather from sea level to vacuum is asking for trouble.
 
sublight is back said:
Since we've gotten really good at railguns (General Atomics has anyway) wouldn't it be more cost effective to have a combo rail launch, to scramjet to solid booster platform. You'd have to find that balance between the maximum G load your sat package can take and the size of your humongous rail gun and its cost. After the pain of the initial expenditure, the launches should be pretty cheap.

Railguns haven't been scaled up to anything close to the mass or velocity needed for this role. XS-1 is practically proven tech by comparison -- part X-37, part Pegasus.
 
Orionblamblam said:
sublight is back said:
A railgun could spit out launches like a bus schedule. That would be more than all the space launch sites on earth combined.

Yeah, but space launch sites typically involve launch vehicles that can actually attain orbit. A railgun cannot. 2.5 km/sec is *really* *fast* for a cannon, but it's only a small fraction of the 8 km/sec needed for orbital velocity. So you'd still need to generate more than 90% of the kinetic energy via the "upper stage." And scramjets just seem to seriously suck. Using an airbreather from sea level to vacuum is asking for trouble.

Not to mention how much more your space thing-a-ma-jig is going to weigh to enable it to withstand railgun launch forces.
 
sferrin said:
Not to mention how much more your space thing-a-ma-jig is going to weigh to enable it to withstand railgun launch forces.

If you have massive construction projects in LEO that need metals like aluminum and titanium and such, this *might* be a way to get it done. The vehicle *is* the payload; gets snagged on orbit and melted down and reprocessed. But to survive atmospheric flight, the shell would likely need a lot of ceramics, RCC, composites, etc. that cannot be cost effectively reprocessed.

And then some smartass will park a small nickle-iron asteroid in GEO and ruin your business model.
 
Orionblamblam said:
sublight is back said:
A railgun could spit out launches like a bus schedule. That would be more than all the space launch sites on earth combined.

Yeah, but space launch sites typically involve launch vehicles that can actually attain orbit. A railgun cannot. 2.5 km/sec is *really* *fast* for a cannon, but it's only a small fraction of the 8 km/sec needed for orbital velocity. So you'd still need to generate more than 90% of the kinetic energy via the "upper stage." And scramjets just seem to seriously suck. Using an airbreather from sea level to vacuum is asking for trouble.

I was thinking a scaled up railgun would have a much higher velocity potential. Something several hundred yards long with the majority of it underground, maybe in a mountainside. It is a fantasy concept, but likely no less feasible than this DARPA proposal will turn out to be....
 
Orionblamblam said:
sferrin said:
Not to mention how much more your space thing-a-ma-jig is going to weigh to enable it to withstand railgun launch forces.

If you have massive construction projects in LEO that need metals like aluminum and titanium and such, this *might* be a way to get it done. The vehicle *is* the payload; gets snagged on orbit and melted down and reprocessed. But to survive atmospheric flight, the shell would likely need a lot of ceramics, RCC, composites, etc. that cannot be cost effectively reprocessed.

And then some smartass will park a small nickle-iron asteroid in GEO and ruin your business model.

Reminds me of the idea to fire moonrock cinderblocks with a liner accelerator from the moon for space colonies / solar power stations.
 
sublight is back said:
Orionblamblam said:
sublight is back said:
A railgun could spit out launches like a bus schedule. That would be more than all the space launch sites on earth combined.

Yeah, but space launch sites typically involve launch vehicles that can actually attain orbit. A railgun cannot. 2.5 km/sec is *really* *fast* for a cannon, but it's only a small fraction of the 8 km/sec needed for orbital velocity. So you'd still need to generate more than 90% of the kinetic energy via the "upper stage." And scramjets just seem to seriously suck. Using an airbreather from sea level to vacuum is asking for trouble.

I was thinking a scaled up railgun would have a much higher velocity potential. Something several hundred yards long with the majority of it underground, maybe in a mountainside. It is a fantasy concept, but likely no less feasible than this DARPA proposal will turn out to be....
 

Attachments

  • untitledxx.png
    untitledxx.png
    163.8 KB · Views: 258
  • untitleddf.png
    untitleddf.png
    106.5 KB · Views: 258
  • launchfacility.jpg
    launchfacility.jpg
    25.2 KB · Views: 216
sublight is back said:
Orionblamblam said:
sublight is back said:
A railgun could spit out launches like a bus schedule. That would be more than all the space launch sites on earth combined.

Yeah, but space launch sites typically involve launch vehicles that can actually attain orbit. A railgun cannot. 2.5 km/sec is *really* *fast* for a cannon, but it's only a small fraction of the 8 km/sec needed for orbital velocity. So you'd still need to generate more than 90% of the kinetic energy via the "upper stage." And scramjets just seem to seriously suck. Using an airbreather from sea level to vacuum is asking for trouble.

I was thinking a scaled up railgun would have a much higher velocity potential. Something several hundred yards long with the majority of it underground, maybe in a mountainside. It is a fantasy concept, but likely no less feasible than this DARPA proposal will turn out to be....

What is the theoretical velocity of a railgun projectile? Probably depends on many factors but is there a number people use for say the proposed 64Mj class of naval gun?

I think they've hit 32Mj with a goal of 64Mj
 
*Theoretically* you can get relativistic speeds out of railguns, but realistically I think a few kilometers per second is about the limit. I don't believe there is a whole lot of interest in atmospheric railguns faster than maybe 3 km/sec; faster than that, and not only do you have severe erosion of the rails (remember, you've got a physical projectile in physical contract with two rails in precise alignment), but the atmospheric drag on the projectile would be like slamming into a wall.

Coil guns have a faster theoretical muzzle velocity, but only in a vacuum.
 
Better photo of ELHV.
 

Attachments

  • ELHV Rail Test.jpg
    ELHV Rail Test.jpg
    149.9 KB · Views: 839
The railgns they've tested hit about 2.5 km/sec at the muzzle. The scaling up of energy is done mainly by increasing projectile mass - a 64-Mj railgun would fire a round weighing about 10.5kg. By comparison, XS-1 has a payload goal of 1800 kg. The reference design has an expendable upper stage weighing about 6800 kg. No one has any real idea how to build a railgun that big.
 
TomS said:
The railgns they've tested hit about 2.5 km/sec at the muzzle. The scaling up of energy is done mainly by increasing projectile mass - a 64-Mj railgun would fire a round weighing about 10.5kg. By comparison, XS-1 has a payload goal of 1800 kg. The reference design has an expendable upper stage weighing about 6800 kg. No one has any real idea how to build a railgun that big.

Also I think it needs to be said that for stuff like that "railguns" are not what would be used but linear accelerators. Different principles.
 
Coilguns at least in principle should be able to get ridiculously fast (particle accelerators are basically the same thing but for *tiny* projectiles, and they get arbitrarily close to the speed of light). There have been notional ideas for coilguns kilometers long being used for starship propulsion... not just the thrust produced via recoil, but if you send a small iron pellet at 100 km/sec or so into a properly shaped stationary pellet of frozen deuterium, you can initiate a fusion reaction with *no* fissionables. And these reactions can be as big as you like. The Bond/Martin "worldships" envisioned fusion pellets with yields of gigatons.
 
Hi.
This post is about source materials.

1. NG XS-1 Press Release source (link) here:
http://www.northropgrumman.com/MediaResources/Pages/NewsArticle.aspx?art=http://www.globenewswire.com/newsarchive/noc/press/xml/nitf.html?d=10095324and

2. NG XS-1 artwork (HiRes image link) here (attachment too):
http://media.globenewswire.com/cache/189/hires/28304.jpg

Interestingly, this 3D artwork is authored by a certain PBarnett'14 (watermarked signature on the lower left-hand right-hand* side corner, vertically displayed), a pretty odd twist as company image hardly filtered out, signed in plain sight…

3. Screengrab of NG homepage with XS1 story.

A.
*Thx DSE for noticing my error ;)
 

Attachments

  • 28304.jpg
    28304.jpg
    254.1 KB · Views: 1,156
  • 20140820-NG-website_homepage-screengrab-XS1.png
    20140820-NG-website_homepage-screengrab-XS1.png
    588.9 KB · Views: 1,101
Guys,

As a reminder, and for the sake of keeping an eye on future XS-1 developments, NG's HLV project manager was a decade (or so) ago, Dennis Poulos (1)
who left NG in 2010 to create his own consulting company. There is some legacy here (2).

A.

sources:
(1) http://www.chron.com/news/article/PZ-Photo-Release-Northrop-Grumman-Proposes-1855502.php
(2) http://pouloscorp.com/about-us/staff/
 
Right. You're right. Doing do many things at the same time.
I edited & corrected my post with acknowledgement. Thx again.
A.
 
One of the entries the did not make the cut........ concept by Retro Flight
FDL- 7 Platform
Fly back booster 4 TVG Rockets Inc. RT-30 Reusable Slick Thottleable Rocket Engines (60k thrust each)

Upper Stage two LR-101 rocket engines.

Windward TPS of TVG Rockets Inc. TUFI Coated AETB and M-D-R Inc.
A heat pipe based coolant system is imbedded in the LE similar to that developed by the Wadley research Group and flows from the hot leading edges to the cooler fuselage sides.
MOOG avionics GN&C
Jacobs pad construction.....THOR like.
Global trailers - launch transport trailer.
Spaceport America - Launch site
Molzin Corbin - Flame trench

Fabricator - Janicki Industries
 

Attachments

  • retro logo1.jpg
    retro logo1.jpg
    236.3 KB · Views: 750
  • full and sub scale.jpg
    full and sub scale.jpg
    198.1 KB · Views: 671
  • spacerocket texture darpa.jpg
    spacerocket texture darpa.jpg
    37.1 KB · Views: 137
Downsized as Cubestat launcher the XR-1 Rocket with dual ramjets. Currently under development schedule to fly late summer 2015.
 

Attachments

  • XR-1.jpg
    XR-1.jpg
    449.5 KB · Views: 118
  • XR-1 Concept Fly-Back Cube Booster.jpg
    XR-1 Concept Fly-Back Cube Booster.jpg
    106.7 KB · Views: 132
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/engineering/11789239/Hypersonic-spaceplane-could-fly-at-10-times-the-speed-of-sound.html
 
Another idiot in charge of newspaper technology section...what a profound article title
 
flateric said:
Another idiot in charge of newspaper technology section...what a profound article title

At least he didn't put "game changing" or "revolutionary" in the title. (Though, as you point out, he did get the obligatory "hypersonic" in there.)
 
Here's hopefully a somewhat better article. ???

US Military Awards New Contracts for XS-1 Space Plane

http://www.space.com/30196-xs1-military-space-plane-boeing-contract.html
 
Hi.

Under DoD SBIR, Darpa initiated (2015) the study of a very low cost expendable upper stage launcher which could be used by XS-1.

SBIR Contract info referenced as "Low Cost Expendable Launch Technology":
  • "There is a compelling DoD need to leverage emerging commercial entrepreneurial and defense technologies enabling lightweight, high-specific-energy liquid-rocket technology. Many established aerospace and emerging entrepreneurial companies are developing new rocket stage technologies that promise to reduce the cost of access to space.
  • The goal of this topic is to leverage these investments to enable low-cost launch vehicles that minimize gross and dry weight while maximizing the propellant load, engine specific impulse and/or payload.
  • Technological trends facilitating such lightweight stages include an ongoing computer/software revolution enabling affordable design, sophisticated software in lieu of mechanical complexity, integration, and test; micro-miniaturization of electronics and mechanical actuators; high strength-to-weight composites and nano-engineered materials; lightweight structural concepts and thermal protection; advanced manufacturing methods, high thrust/weight rocket engines and turbo-machinery; and novel high-density-impulse liquid propellants that are safe, cheap and easy to handle. The offeror must demonstrate a clear understanding of the system applications of the launch vehicle and the supporting technologies. A system application of interest to the government is modifying the launch vehicle as a low-cost upper stage for DARPA’s Experimental Spaceplane (XS-1) program.
  • Key design goals include balancing low gross mass with adequate velocity change, payload and manufacturing cost. Additionally, reusable launch concepts such as XS-1 may carry stages through either normal or longitudinally-oriented hardpoints/racks. Stages with efficient structural arrangements to cope with such load paths while remaining low in mass and cost are of interest.
  • Other potential system applications include a wide range of commercial launch vehicles, tactical missiles, satellite integral propulsion and future boost-glide tactical or air transport systems. Similarly, a clear understanding of the technology applications to XS-1 as well as other proposed military and commercial systems is also essential. Critical technologies could include lightweight structures and propulsion, high-density-impulse propellants, miniaturized avionics, modular components, altitude compensation and complementary aerodynamic/propulsion integration, and stability, guidance and control subsystems all integrated into the stage while keeping the system simple and affordable. Offerors may seek to design and fabricate an entire stage or only critical subsystems.
  • PHASE I: Develop the design, manufacturing and test approach for fabricating extremely low-cost, high propellant mass fraction launch vehicles and upper stages for space access. Critical component or analytical risk reduction is encouraged. Identify potential system level and technology applications of the proposed innovation. Although multiple applications are encouraged, to help assess the military utility the proposed stage should be useful as an upper stage on the XS-1 experimental spaceplane. The stage(s) must be designed to support: 1) an ideal velocity change of up to 20,000 fps objective, 2) a payload of 3,000 lbs, 3) a gross mass of less than 30,000 lbs, 4) a unit fly away cost of <$1M per stage, and 5) a safe and affordable alternative to today’s carcinogenic propellants such as hydrazine, unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine and red fuming nitric acid.
  • PHASE II: Finalize the Phase I design, then develop, demonstrate and validate the system design, critical hardware components and/or enabling technologies. Design, construct and demonstrate the experimental hardware or component prototypes identified or developed in Phase I. The Phase II demonstration should advance the state of the art to between Technology Readiness Level 5 and 6. Required Phase II deliverables will include the experimental prototype hardware and a final report including design data such as CAD and detailed mass properties, manufacturing and test plan, costing data, test data, updated future applications and Phase III military transition and commercialization strategies.
  • PHASE III: The offeror will identify military applications of the proposed innovative technology(s) including use as a low-cost upper stage on the XS-1 experimental spaceplane. Leveraging of commercial and defense stages tailored to support specific upper stage needs is encouraged. Technology transition opportunities will be identified along with the most likely path for transition from SBIR research to an operational capability. The transition path may include use on commercial launch vehicles or alternative system and technology applications of interest to operational military and commercial customers."
source: https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/736809

A.
 
ALASA and XS-1 are not the same thing. ALASA has been discussed a bit in other threads.

That said, the end of ALASA is possibly an indication of what is going to happen with XS-1. I know somebody who is very involved in military space R&D, including space transportation, and he has a dim view of both DARPA projects. He thinks the ALASA propulsion choice was ridiculous, and the XS-1 goals are totally unrealistic and an indication that the people involved don't understand pretty basic issues for launch vehicles. So don't be surprised to see XS-1 get canceled at some point.
 
Oh, I didn't think it needed to go away. The electrons are free, however. It's just that somebody searching for ALASA is going to find a bunch of different threads. I do think there's a connection between the programs--not simply DARPA, but DARPA made bad technology choices, which they do.
 
http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/04/darpa-xs-1-spaceplane-program-to-ease.html
 
http://www.space.com/33009-darpa-xs1-military-space-plane-phase-2.html?utm_source=social&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialtwitterspc&cmpid=social_spc_514648
 
http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/05/july-22-deadline-for-darpa-xs-1.html
 
New article and image from Masten.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/07/darpa-pushing-experimental-spaceplane-xs-1/
 
http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/10/08/darpa-places-a-big-bet-on-a-small-rocket-maker.aspx
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom