Posted on 01/17/2007 11:58:38 AM PST by BenLurkin
MOJAVE - XCOR Aerospace has begun test-firing its 7,500-pound-thrust methane-fueled engine, a prototype of one intended for NASA's next-generation spacecraft. The Mojave-based company is partnered with Alliant Techsystems, or ATK, in the $10.4 million contract for the first phase of developing a rocket engine that runs on liquid oxygen and liquid methane, nontoxic fuels that could help lower the overall cost of spaceflight.
XCOR's engine successfully has completed six short-duration test firings at the test site on the northeast end of Mojave Airport, using a new test stand that can handle up to 40,000 pounds of thrust, said Rich Pournelle, director of business development.
"This was a great first firing," XCOR CEO Jeff Greason said. "Everything worked incredibly well. The crew put in long days and nights to get the engine and new test stand ready for today, and the results were outstanding. I could not have expected it to come out any better."
The engine is known as a "trombone" engine, because it has a chamber that slides back and forth to change its length. Test firings at different lengths will determine the optimal size, Pournelle said.
A second prototype engine, with a cooling system, will be built and tested with the optimal size. The initial prototype uses extra metal to collect heat and runs only in short bursts until the metal gets hot.
The two prototypes are included in the contract, Pournelle said. Future contract options allow for design and testing of the lighter, flight-weight version of the engine.
(Excerpt) Read more at avpress.com ...
ping
I remember back in `69 when Armstrong first stepped on the moon (and I still have the newspapers and magazines from back then), everyone was so jazzed, saying "oh this is incredible! By the year 2000 we will be on Mars, colonies will be on the moon, and from there we will have explored every planet" etc etc etc...But what the hell happened? Here we are in 2007 and it`s still the same.
Why has the space program been so static since `69? Why are we still messing around with ten gazillion shuttle launches than seemingly acomplish nothing but blow up and still messing around with landing on the moon which has already been done? Is it the lack of money that halted all that or is it just everyone lost interest once that main goal of the moon landing was accomplished? Or are all those dreams back then much harder to accomplish than we thought?
This does not make the grade as a component of private space development. Go for the FedGov contract. Even Rutan does that. FedGov remains the main sugardaddy in space. Repeal the Treaty.
back in the 60's failure was not an option
in today's environment risk is not an option
resulting in much higher the cost/accomplishment ratios
not that their budget has kept pace of course.
The conquest of space was not a battle against space, per se. It was a contest between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. to see who was the best at hurling people and big heavy things all over our part of the universe. By the time we reached the moon and then achieved the Space Shuttle it was clear that we won that portion of the Cold War. We then had to achieve economic and military victories in other areas that received the attention that could have been spent in beating the U.S.S.R. even more in space. We focused on deployments of intermediate range weapons in Western Europe, advancing our warheads and multiple-impact vehicles, and in funding Contra people in the Western Hemisphere.
Now, the conquest of space is more of a battle against space. New lay of the land, so to speak.
The Shuttle suffers from the same problems, but it takes a much smaller slice of the GDP. Even if we only do a few laps around the earth every few months at great risk to the astronauts, it's still a very prestigious accomplishment. Just look at how many FR threads pop up around a Shuttle launch.
The new moon program is a big mistake. After the initial excitement people will realize there is not much worth to it. The future is the "democratization" of space travel and the private sector is doing that.
.
Now, the conquest of space is more of a battle against space. New lay of the land, so to speak.
Going to the Moon and Mars in the future needs an adjustment in our thinking. Instead of launching a spaceship from Earth with everything it needs for the round trip landing and back, there is a much more sensible way.
Construct a modular shuttle in Earth orbit, a big engine with fuel to take the passenger ship from Earth orbit to Lunar or Martian orbit and back. It does not land.
Right now we are developing an unmanned rocket that can lift a 100-ton payload into orbit. So design the shuttle in 100-ton pieces for assembly in Earth orbit. Then just before the passenger ship goes up, you load the shuttle with fuel and check it out. Then you dock the passenger ship with it and off you go.
The advantages are straightforward:
1) The passenger ship only needs to liftoff from Earth, land on the Moon (or Mars), liftoff from the Moon (or Mars), and land on the Earth. It doesn't need to carry the fuel for the round trip, and can have an engine designed for just takeoffs and landings, not long haul.
2) This means the passenger ship can carry a lot more supplies to the Moon and Mars, things intended to be left there for future use. It means the astronauts can stay there longer and accomplish much more.
3) More cargo also means things like construction robots that when left behind will continue to improve a landing site, for example mining long horizontal tunnels in rock for use as human habitation.
That's a good point...it is a contest against other Earthlings, though not as potentially deadly as the last one I hope.
SEND THEM....(and bury 'em in Tycho like a common monolith)
We're starting to see a turnaround now, with private enterprise finally getting into the game.
Because it's a *government* program, not a *space* program.
Flying things is space is easy. While getting them that first hundred miles into orbit is hard. But instead of building a genuinely practical method of space launch (something 100% reusable, and can be turned around for another flight in a day, not a few months), NASA has actively fought against any kind of practical launch vehicle in every way possible. They spread disinformation about how "hard" such a vehicle would be to build, and how incredibly expensive it would be to design, and how minuscule it's performance would be vs. throw away hardware.
Lots of people have stakes in the status quo. Missile builders. Government bureaucrats. Security paranoids (don't want Bin Laden to buy one of those things). So the only progress to building such a thing is being done in the private sector, and then only with the grudging permission of all those interest groups who want things to stay as they are.
Wonder if the Pournelle guy is Jerry's son?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.