A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Science Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Rutan's RASCAL



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 6th 04, 06:41 PM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rutan's RASCAL

Anyone seen this yet?:
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...s/SSO11014.xml
Sounds almost like the reemergence of the Soviet "Spiral-50/50" system
in an unmanned payload form.

Pat

  #2  
Old November 7th 04, 06:06 AM
Jim Kingdon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...s/SSO11014.xml
Sounds almost like the reemergence of the Soviet "Spiral-50/50" system
in an unmanned payload form.


As far as I could tell from a little quick web searching, Spiral-50/50
was going to be much bigger (in terms of payload capacity and vehicle
size), involve more new technology, and cost a lot more to develop.

Keep in mind that RASCAL is supposed to have only a 75 kg payload and
cost $750,000 per flight.

When I saw that RASCAL article, it made me think of what Pegasus was
originally supposed to be, or taking the concept one step further.
Didn't Pegasus have a goal of rapid launch from the time of payload
delivery (which kind of went by the wayside, I think)? And I don't
know if Pegasus had a specific dollar target, but it was seen as a way
to put a small payload in orbit for a small amount of money.

  #3  
Old November 7th 04, 08:07 AM
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Jim Kingdon wrote:
When I saw that RASCAL article, it made me think of what Pegasus was
originally supposed to be, or taking the concept one step further.
Didn't Pegasus have a goal of rapid launch from the time of payload
delivery (which kind of went by the wayside, I think)?


Rapid launch was a goal for Taurus, but I don't recall explicit mention
of it for Pegasus. (Mind you, it's been a while...)

And I don't
know if Pegasus had a specific dollar target, but it was seen as a way
to put a small payload in orbit for a small amount of money.


And it is... for moderately hefty values of "small". It *has* gotten
substantially more expensive than originally advertised, although the
customer demand is also far less than expected, which just might have
something to do with that.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

  #4  
Old November 7th 04, 08:30 AM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jim Kingdon wrote:

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...s/SSO11014.xml
Sounds almost like the reemergence of the Soviet "Spiral-50/50" system
in an unmanned payload form.



As far as I could tell from a little quick web searching, Spiral-50/50
was going to be much bigger (in terms of payload capacity and vehicle
size), involve more new technology, and cost a lot more to develop.


As in break-the-bank expensive in regards to the cost of developing the
manned Mach 6 booster; but the overall concept is somewhat similer.

Pat

  #5  
Old November 7th 04, 04:19 PM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Henry Spencer wrote:

Rapid launch was a goal for Taurus, but I don't recall explicit mention
of it for Pegasus. (Mind you, it's been a while...)


If it succeeds, RASCAL would give the military NRO and NSA a unique
capability in regards to space access; such a vehicle would be capable
of launching a large number of small satellites onto orbital paths that
would take them over "hotspots" on their first orbit, allowing SIGINT
intercepts from orbit or photoreconnaissance at borderline orbital
heights- with the images being sent down via coded microburst as the
satellite passed back over the U.S. or friendly territory prior to reentry.
It would also allow the launch of large numbers of small military
communications, navigation, or signal jamming satellites in a surge mode
in times of crises, as well as satellite interceptor vehicles in a
direct-ascent mode.
The mission launch rate of once per 24 hours means that a small number
of these aircraft/booster combos could put up stored satellites or
interceptors every few hours in an emergency.
Although such a craft could have scientific or commercial uses, the
funding by DARPA suggests that its use is intended to be primarily
military in nature.

Pat

  #6  
Old November 8th 04, 03:00 PM
Peter Stickney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Pat Flannery writes:
Henry Spencer wrote:

Rapid launch was a goal for Taurus, but I don't recall explicit mention
of it for Pegasus. (Mind you, it's been a while...)


If it succeeds, RASCAL would give the military NRO and NSA a unique
capability in regards to space access; such a vehicle would be capable
of launching a large number of small satellites onto orbital paths that
would take them over "hotspots" on their first orbit, allowing SIGINT
intercepts from orbit or photoreconnaissance at borderline orbital
heights- with the images being sent down via coded microburst as the
satellite passed back over the U.S. or friendly territory prior to reentry.
It would also allow the launch of large numbers of small military
communications, navigation, or signal jamming satellites in a surge mode
in times of crises, as well as satellite interceptor vehicles in a
direct-ascent mode.
The mission launch rate of once per 24 hours means that a small number
of these aircraft/booster combos could put up stored satellites or
interceptors every few hours in an emergency.
Although such a craft could have scientific or commercial uses, the
funding by DARPA suggests that its use is intended to be primarily
military in nature.


The same is pretty much true of Pegasus. What's been limiting that
has been a requirement to use existing ranges for, as I understand it,
range safety reasons. While the airborne launch theoretically
provides for essentially unrestricted launch trajectories, the need to
keep track of it on the way up, and have it fall somewhere other than,
say, a Junior Jugh School in New Jersey if things go wrong, have made
that inherent flexibility moot.
Is there any reason to believe that those artificial requirements
would be modified or lifted for Rascal? I rather doubt it, myself.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

  #7  
Old November 8th 04, 03:00 PM
Damon Hill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Pat Flannery wrote in
:

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...kly_story.jsp?
id=news/SSO11014.xml


What's this four-engine souped-up hotrod going to
look like?

Could a MiG-25 be modified for similar performance?

--Damon

  #8  
Old November 8th 04, 09:07 PM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Peter Stickney wrote:

the need to
keep track of it on the way up, and have it fall somewhere other than,
say, a Junior Jugh School in New Jersey if things go wrong


They aren't going to live that down for a while, are they? Could have
been worse...could have hit a ski-lift in the Italian Alps...

have made
that inherent flexibility moot.


It's going to use _Soundless Rocket Engines_?!
Oh, excuse me...I thought you wrote "Mook" for a second there. ;-)

Is there any reason to believe that those artificial requirements
would be modified or lifted for Rascal? I rather doubt it, myself.


In times of crisis, the launch restrictions would be put aside, as long
as the booster stages came down over open ocean; it would be a lot
easier (and cheaper) to keep some of these things loaded and ready to go
than a fleet of Lockheed Tristars or B-52's, like Pegasus uses.
Considering the price that Rutan built White Knight/SpaceShipOne at, he
probably will be able to turn RASCAL out at a bargain basement
price...if only the bureaucracy will leave him alone- and not drown him
in paperwork, like the B-2 Stealth Bomber project was.

Pat

  #9  
Old November 8th 04, 09:34 PM
Len
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Damon Hill wrote in message . 134...
Pat Flannery wrote in
:

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...kly_story.jsp?
id=news/SSO11014.xml


What's this four-engine souped-up hotrod going to
look like?

Could a MiG-25 be modified for similar performance?

--Damon


As leader for the first stage on the Coleman RASCAL
Phase I effort, I seriously considered the MiG-25.
In the existing aircraft category, we finally ended
up with the F-14 as being most suitable for RASCAL.

We believed--and continue to believe--that a new
aircraft would bust the DARPA RASCAL budget, which
it already has.

Our post-RASCAL effort suggests that a rocket-powered
F-14A with readily available TF-30 engines could exceed
RASCAL payload and cost goals with very little modification
other than addding the rocket system. Our calculations
suggest that we could take 4000 kg to mach 2.5 and 21 km.
Separation would still be at low q--albeit not the 1 psf
DARPA goal.

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
(change x to len)
http://www.tour2space.com

  #10  
Old November 8th 04, 10:54 PM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Len wrote:

As leader for the first stage on the Coleman RASCAL
Phase I effort, I seriously considered the MiG-25.
In the existing aircraft category, we finally ended
up with the F-14 as being most suitable for RASCAL.


The spacecraft booster snuggles up between the two engine ducts, right?


We believed--and continue to believe--that a new
aircraft would bust the DARPA RASCAL budget, which
it already has.

Our post-RASCAL effort suggests that a rocket-powered
F-14A with readily available TF-30 engines could exceed
RASCAL payload and cost goals with very little modification
other than addding the rocket system.


Where's the rocket supposed to go- in a fairing between the two engine
nozzles, or duel units on the underduct areas normally used for the four
Phoenix missiles?

Pat

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rutan's hints of future directions in Discovery documentary: Tier Two and beyond Neil Halelamien Policy 0 October 13th 04 02:51 AM
That wascally RASCAL Allen Thomson Policy 3 September 25th 04 10:35 PM
X-Prize: Scaled considering passengers on second flight Andrew Gray Policy 6 August 8th 04 06:35 PM
Rutans White Knight as IR observatory Carsten Nielsen Technology 7 February 29th 04 04:13 AM
Rascal? Richard Stewart Technology 10 October 7th 03 06:40 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.