That wascally RASCAL

This is kind of second-hand. If anyone has more solid information
on what's going on with RASCAL, it would be a kindness to post it.

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001105.html

TROUBLE FOR DARPA SPACE PROGRAM
Darpa, we have a problem.
Posted by noahmax at September 14, 2004 12:32 AM
[EXCERPTS]


[O]ne of Darpa's main space programs -- the Responsive Access,
Small Cargo and Affordable Launch Vehicle(RASCAL) project --
is "not going very well," agency director Tony Tether has
confessed. Darpa will "re-evaluate the program following a
design review this autumn," reports Defense News.

During 2002's DarpaTech conference, RASCAL program manager
Preston Carter promised flight tests in 2005. Now, it's
pretty clear that's not happening.

According to Defense News, RASCAL-designer Space Launch
Corporation says "has not yet determined the precise cost."

Darpa has run into cost growth problems with the RASCAL
program in the past, because the carrier aircraft turned
out to be more expensive than anticipated. Early in the
program, the estimated cost of developing the aircraft was
$88 million, but the total program cost now is estimated to
pass the $100 million mark in 2005 with significant funding
still needed to carry through to a flight demonstration.

On 23 Sep 2004 13:19:25 -0700, in a place far, far away,
(Allen Thomson) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

This is kind of second-hand. If anyone has more solid information
on what's going on with RASCAL, it would be a kindness to post it.

RASCAL had an intrinsic program conundrum in that it was a technology
(MIPCC) looking for a problem. DARPA didn't want cheap launch--they
wanted cheap launch that used MIPCC, even though a pure rocket
solution might have made more sense..

Rand Simberg wrote:
(Allen Thomson) glowed:
This is kind of second-hand. If anyone has more solid information
on what's going on with RASCAL, it would be a kindness to post it.

RASCAL had an intrinsic program conundrum in that it was a technology
(MIPCC) looking for a problem. DARPA didn't want cheap launch--they
wanted cheap launch that used MIPCC, even though a pure rocket
solution might have made more sense..

I haven't made much of a secret of my aborted response to RASCAL.
I've discussed it at conferences informally but I don't recall
if I posted it.

We were going to propose a hot-rodded B-1 (B-1B airframe
with the B-1A intakes, and some extra titanium skins)
with nitrous oxide MIPCC as the "booster" and a conventional
two stage upper stage carried in one of the bomb bays.

The B-1 modifications were going to take longer to develop
than the upper stage. To keep things on track, I sketched
out a pressure fed booster rocket stage, which would duplicate
the B-1's ascent profile and let us test the upper stages
launch to orbit.

Once sketched, the booster rocket proved to be significantly
cheaper to develop, and to have a lower per flight marginal
cost than the B-1, and to have a lower development cost
than the B-1 modifications by probably an order of magnitude.

I was sorely tempted to propose this whole thing and
halfway through say "Oh, Oops, This little test rocket
thingige is cheaper and more effective than the big
MIPCC airplane thingie, can we quit now and call it
a launch system?"

I couldn't quite bring myself to complete the proposal
and see how well it would work.


-george william herbert

(George William Herbert) wrote in message ...
I was sorely tempted to propose this whole thing and
halfway through say "Oh, Oops, This little test rocket
thingige is cheaper and more effective than the big
MIPCC airplane thingie, can we quit now and call it
a launch system?"

Well, there are legitimate benefits to air launch - the ability to
operate away from established launch ranges is one, and the ability to
independently set your orbital parameters (inclination, RAAN, argument
of perigee, and time of perigee passage) is another. The latter can
be particularly important if you want really responsive launch ("I
want a satellite to look at Point X tomorrow at 3, 4:30, and 6" or "I
need this part to ISS by tomorrow!").

Not that this implies MIPCC - Pegasus does it (sorta), you could
launch a SpaceX Falcon from the back of an old LPD in the middle of
the Pacific, you could just strap a rocket engine on the back of an
airplane instead of making extensive modifications to a bunch of
F100s... etc.

-jake