AFRL Seeks Reusable Booster X-Plane Ideas

"The Air Force Research Laboratory has
finally released its request for information
on concepts for a reusable launch vehicle.
They are calling it the Reusable Booster
System (RBS), because the focus is on a
fly-back first stage carrying an extendable
upper stage."

Source:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...e-7a7a675f97de

wrote:
"The Air Force Research Laboratory has
finally released its request for information
on concepts for a reusable launch vehicle.
They are calling it the Reusable Booster
System (RBS), because the focus is on a
fly-back first stage carrying an extendable
upper stage."

Source:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...e-7a7a675f97de


This will probably end up being a military variant of WhiteKnightTwo.
At least if they have any sense regarding total investment versus
finished product, it will be. :-)

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:
This will probably end up being a military variant of
WhiteKnightTwo. At least if they have any sense regarding total
investment versus finished product, it will be. :-)

From what (little) I've read I got the impression they wanted
something with a little more "oomph."

rick jones
--
I don't interest myself in "why." I think more often in terms of
"when," sometimes "where;" always "how much." - Joubert
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

wrote in message
...
"The Air Force Research Laboratory has
finally released its request for information
on concepts for a reusable launch vehicle.
They are calling it the Reusable Booster
System (RBS), because the focus is on a
fly-back first stage carrying an extendable
upper stage."

Source:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...e-7a7a675f97de

I think this is a good idea. Reusable first stages ought to be technically
much easier to build and fly than a reusable upper stage. Jet engine
powered take offs and landings mean that you don't need traditional launch
facilities. You could fly this thing from just about any facility with a
long enough runway.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
lephone...

This will probably end up being a military variant of WhiteKnightTwo.
At least if they have any sense regarding total investment versus finished
product, it will be. :-)

Actually, I doubt you could fly a similar mission with WhiteKnightTwo. This
thing looks like it's going to fly a suborbital trajectory similar to SS1,
but this vehicle is its own jet powered carrier aircraft as well as a rocket
powered suborbital spacecraft.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

"Jeff Findley" writes:

Actually, I doubt you could fly a similar mission with WhiteKnightTwo. This
thing looks like it's going to fly a suborbital trajectory similar to SS1,
but this vehicle is its own jet powered carrier aircraft as well as a rocket
powered suborbital spacecraft.


Rocket powered suborbital spacecraft, or "heavy lift" mission. Whatever that
means.

Is the AF thinking about a Pegasus alternative for the day when the B52 is
finally retired?

Dave

PS: One assumes the 'reusable' booster is piloted and one could question that
idea too. Another good one brewing in the AF these days.

writes:
If you are referring to the venerable tail number 008 which was assigned to
NASA DFRC, it was retired after the Hyper-X Mach 10 flight on Nov 16, 2004.

So the future is now.

That jibes with OSC's website as well:

http://www.orbital.com/SpaceLaunch/L1011/index.shtml

Thank you for that update. Check.

Dave

PS: So why is this not good enough for USAF?

David Spain wrote:
writes:
If you are referring to the venerable tail number 008 which was
assigned to NASA DFRC, it was retired after the Hyper-X Mach 10
flight on Nov 16, 2004.

So the future is now.
That jibes with OSC's website as well:
http://www.orbital.com/SpaceLaunch/L1011/index.shtml
Thank you for that update. Check.
Dave
PS: So why is this not good enough for USAF?

Orbital can "get by" with just the one, near-museum-piece L1011
carrier, but I suspect that the USAF would want to have more than one
of them. I also doubt they already have any L1011's in the Air Force
stable, which means they would be bringing-in a new-to-the-USAF pony.
At that point, might as well make it a truly new pony rather than an
old nag, no matter how fine a mare she was in her prime.

rick jones
--
firebug n, the idiot who tosses a lit cigarette out his car window
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

David Spain wrote:
Rocket powered suborbital spacecraft, or "heavy lift" mission. Whatever that
means.

Is the AF thinking about a Pegasus alternative for the day when the B52 is
finally retired?


They have expressed interest since the 1980's in suborbital attack
vehicles; there's one outlined in the Air Force 2025 report from 1996:
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/doco...12/v3c12-1.htm
But for a completly oddball military space mission, you have to go to
"Hot Eagle": http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001815.html

Pat