#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 03:13 AM |
Rascal? | Richard Stewart | Technology | 10 | October 7th 03 06:40 PM |