German Bundeswehr contracts Polaris Raumflugzeuge for scaled demo Aurora hypersonic "spaceplane"

muttbutt

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
31 January 2010
Messages
365
Reaction score
370

Space plane demonstrator for the Bundeswehr​


The Bundeswehr has contracted Polaris to build and flight test a scaled demonstrator of the Aurora aerospace and hypersonic system. The order is based on the preparatory project RDRS, which was successfully completed in 2021.


03/18/2022

The demonstrator will be the largest aircraft ever built by Polaris Raumflugzeuge GmbH in Bremen. It is about ten times heavier than previous jet-powered aircraft that have flown or are preparing to fly. The first flights are planned for the end of this year.
H1C76Dy.jpg


More in German. https://www.flugrevue.de/militaer/auftrag-an-polaris-raumflugzeug-demonstrator-fuer-die-bundeswehr/
 
Wow, spectacularly bad timing - that announcement's way too early for April Fools Day! But seriously, as a German aerospace engineer I am truly stunned (and somewhat embarrased) that the BAAINBw has apparently been hoodwinked like that.
 
Last edited:
 
1kN of thrust equate 100kgp ~ 200lb of Thrust.
Not much for a 4,5m long vehicle with the intend to reach above 100km and go hypersonic..

So I fail to understand the logic in this expenditure of public money:
- why build an entire vehicle when you can hung the rocket engine under an high altitude aircraft and test it safely (thrust is minimal)?
- why risk injuries flying such around an airport?
- what's new there?
 
Last edited:
That’s the inverse of the D-558…A rocket plane with a jet as opposed to a jet-plane with a rocket.

To me, a jet is something you have so you don’t have to land dead-stick like Shuttle…something you can use after you re-enter. Pop up over the atmosphere with a pure rocket.

This way you can have an airframe that doesn’t look like a chisel. Yuck.

It will probably take a few more breakthroughs to get Orion III though—the SuperSabre on steroids.
 
Last edited:
Hey, cool, their website has a page with their several different demonstrators,

DEMONSTRATORS
Building and operating scaled spaceplane demonstrators is a key for rapid project progress, technology validation and risk reduction. POLARIS follows this approach with a series of five demonstrators of increasing size, mass and complexity. These five demonstrators are complemented by additional auxiliary vehicles, where useful.

 
I like the concept they have. If its gonna be useful is questionable but atleast they try to develop something like that.
 
With their own resources, that would be commendable. Here, it looks like an internship for a few selected kids.
Why does have public money be spend on industry grade know-how?
With an RFI, they would have received competing proposal directly for the last demonstrator, cutting time and expenses.

And what kind of micro-turbine is safe enough to lift a rocket system above the public?
 
That actually scares me less than something like NASP wallowing at lower speeds. Rocket blast means confetti.

A heavy electric plane that cannot lighten itself with a fuel jettison?

That might be the most dangerous thing to have flying over you.

Kerosene fires you can douse more easily.

I don't get why folks are hostile to government funding of rocketry. I think this is good.
 
Last edited:
Confetti are shards and frags. Not much better.

But for the EV aircraft, you are right. It does not make much sense to deem those safe as in the status quo.

Especially when the biggest problem is that safety would now be directly linked to batteries manufacring, when those are seldom designed by industry members that have a solid experience in aviation.
Inevitably, mistakes that could have been adverted will be made, with the inherent loss of life.
 
Last edited:
To me, a jet is something you have so you don’t have to land dead-stick like Shuttle…something you can use after you re-enter.
Not true. It doesn't mean the engine is available for use after entry. Dead stick landings are not a big deal. See 133 shuttle and 6 X-37 landings and soon to add Dreamchaser
 
I don't get why folks are hostile to government funding of rocketry. I think this is good.
Again, you read something and take away the wrong interpretation.
Not every spaceflight concept is worthy of using government money.
And it is wrong to think that just the fact of spending government money on spaceflight regardless of merit is good.
 
To me, a jet is something you have so you don’t have to land dead-stick like Shuttle…something you can use after you re-enter. Pop up over the atmosphere with a pure rocket.
Not true. It doesn't mean the engine is available for use after entry. Dead stick landings are not a big deal. See 133 shuttle and 6 X-37 landings and soon to add Dreamchaser
Actually, using using the rockets to get above atmosphere and using the jet engines after reentry is exactly the flight plan shown here,

 
I am saying that the jet engine might not start every time.
That brings to mind what I use for a signature on Starship Modeler,
"There are a thousand things that can happen when you go light a rocket engine, and only one of them is good."
Tom Mueller of SpaceX, in Air and Space, Jan. 2011
Similar is probably applicable to piston engines, well, actually, they already have a reputation for not starting every time.
Huh, wonder if steam engines started every time ...
 
Probably the future of EV aviation: Cranial steam from their incredulous pilots to power the backup/emergency power source.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom