I’ve known, or at least guessed, that this was in the works for several months (almost a year, really). It was the only thing that made any sense in terms of why ULA would have wanted XCOR to build a hydrogen piston pump. It’s not good news for Pratt & Whitney — they’re going to lose what has been essentially a monopoly for decades. I would assume that the engine production will not occur in California. They’ll be looking for some place with a sane business environment. Again, I have no specific knowledge, but Florida would make a lot of sense.
[Update a few minutes later]
The latest Lurio Report is out. Clark has the T of C. If you don’t subscribe, you should.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Clark also has additional links on the XCOR story.
[Update a few minutes later]
Busy space news day. The latest Space Studies Institute update is out.
[Update in the afternoon]
It turns out that “Joe” in comments had a good guess as to development time:
Sowers said Monday that the pace of the development will depend on the level of investment as milestones are met in the build-a-little, test-a-little approach favored by XCOR. Under the low-cost development approach, it would be 5-10 years before flight engines are available, depending on how the work goes.
Of course, as I said, my estimate of much less time was based on having “adequate funding.” Sounds like they’re doing go as you pay.
Interesting news, thanks for the link.
One point, given that the RL-10 is the first H2/O2 rocket ever developed and has done yeoman’s service for almost 50 years (probably 55-60 years by the time this replacement might come on line); might it not be more respectful to call the XCOR engine and Rl-10 “replacement” instead of “killer”? Maybe a little too much anthropomorphism of an inanimate object, but in this case well deserved. 🙂
It’s hard to believe (at least for me) that XCOR will take ten years, or even five, to get the engine operational. It would certainly fly in the face of their previous development cycles. My guess is that if they have adequate funding, they’ll develop it in a couple years, given how much risk they’ve already bought down with the pump and nozzle.
Rand Simberg Says: March 22nd, 2011 at 8:50 am
“It’s hard to believe (at least for me) that XCOR will take ten years, or even five, to get the engine operational. It would certainly fly in the face of their previous development cycles. My guess is that if they have adequate funding, they’ll develop it in a couple years, given how much risk they’ve already bought down with the pump and nozzle.”
Ok in that case the RL-10 would only have been in (remarkably reliable) service for 50-52 years. Still worthy of a little respect, don’t you think?
Of course it’s worthy of respect. But I don’t think I was disrespectful.
Tell me again why some New Wave space effort wants to do LH2-O2?
High specific impulse and all of that but 1) LH2 is not just cryogenic, it is deeply cryogenic, 2) H2 has endless, just endless handling problems — think of Shuttle and H2 leaks and the hassle, 3) it is much bulkier than anything else, and the extra tank size can work against the specific impulse improvement
The simplest answer is that there are existing upper stages that can use a cheaper engine.
Yeah,
Customers with real money are always good. And quite frankly while LH2 makes no sense for a suborbital vehicle, there are places where it could be quite useful.
~Jon
I hear that the plan is to test the new engine (with no exhaust ‘skirt’ and not a lot of fuel, obviously) atop the Lynx by 2014-15.
I mean the _whole new engine_, with the obvious exceptions. Talk about the advantages of using suborbitals to test something cheaply. They will be able to get the kinks worked out without an all-up cost of flying an expendable. Whether it will separate from the Lynx or remain attached or otherwise somehow be taken back to ground for further tinkering on the same test engine I don’t know.
Charles A. Lurio Says: March 22nd, 2011 at 11:50 am
“I hear that the plan is to test the new engine (with no exhaust ‘skirt’ and not a lot of fuel, obviously) atop the Lynx by 2014-15.”
Test of the engine (not an integrated upper stage) by 2014-2015 (3-4 years from now). If accurate (not doubting your word Charles, in fact that sounds about right to me), then my original “guesstimate” of 5-10 years for a functional upper stage sounds about right. Hopefully it will be closer to the 5 year mark. We will see.
Having a modern low cost plug and play engine available for sub orbital and orbital vehicles will I think be a great leap forward – congratulations to XCOR. This engine could be a great enabler to the development of low cost reusable launch vehicles.
LH2 is fairly attractive for upper stages – where stage GLOW costs far more.
While LH2 vehicles have greater dry mass, there are also more opportunities for cutting down that dry mass fraction. For an SSTO vehicle the performance advantages of LH2 are something like 5% of GLOW. In the long term the dry mass disadvantages might only be 1-2% of GLOW, greatly increasing available payload fraction. With ongoing technological development, LH2 becomes increasingly attractive, especially if handling gets easier. Excepting LH2 handling difficulties, payload to dry mass ratio can be an interesting metric for comparison.
A slight revision to my earlier posting: the test atop the Lynx is one option being considered. Too early to tell if it will actually be exercised.
The real point here is how this demonstrates the capabilities of the new entrepreneurial firms. Some of us have known for a long time that XCOR has incredibly good and robust, lower cost technology. This story just helps bring it to a much wider audience.
Joe, you only get brownie points when your guesstimate comes true, not when others seem to support it.
And if this helps any, the XCOR engine will be an RL-10 “replacement” that will end up being a marketplace “killer” for PWR.
The real point here is how this demonstrates the capabilities of the new entrepreneurial firms.
And their level of credibility among Old Space companies.
Charles Lurio said:
“Some of us have known for a long time that XCOR has incredibly good and robust, lower cost technology. This story just helps bring it to a much wider audience.”
The most telling thing will be what the established aerospace corporations do in response to this trend. Boeing seems to have had the best response so far with the CST-100, and PWR probably the worst with their public whining about needing more business (which XCOR wants to aggravate).
These are interesting times, and hopefully the leadership at the big aerospace firms are getting nervous, and decide that they need to reassess their cost models and product road maps.
MPM said:
“And their level of credibility among Old Space companies.”
…and others. The bizarre part of the whole thing is that a lot of folks at the entrepreneurials have known for some time that in terms of practical, innovative technology they have the Old Space guys beat. We have this at, e.g. SpaceX too, where there are still attempts to say that “they CAN’T” be producing quality goods at “that” low a cost.
What’s happening is that we’re starting to have the equivalent Si valley back-yard garage innovations pop up in an industry that has been fixed in molasses for decades. It’s not the Old companies’ ‘fault,’ its the way the industry has been locked into place by the establishment created by the old “space (and missile) race.”
Yet the irony is that the new firms have to ‘prove’ themselves to the very people that need their help.
Oh well, life is full of illogical necessities.
Yet the irony is that the new firms have to ‘prove’ themselves to the very people that need their help.
And fortunately they appear to be doing very well in the eyes of those very people.
Coastal Ron Says:
March 22nd, 2011 at 1:08 pm
“Joe, you only get brownie points when your guesstimate comes true, not when others seem to support it.
And if this helps any, the XCOR engine will be an RL-10 “replacement” that will end up being a marketplace “killer” for PWR.”
Not looking for “brownie points” from anyone (especially you). And if this helps you any, you only get “brownie points” when one of your many “predictions” come true.
Have a nice day.
Charles A. Lurio Says: March 22nd, 2011 at 1:06 pm
“A slight revision to my earlier posting: the test atop the Lynx is one option being considered. Too early to tell if it will actually be exercised.”
Charles. If this clarification is in any way associated with my comments, please understand (at this early stage of development) I am not trying to hold anyone to anything. You presented an informed possibility and I really appreciate it.
A lot of political flack gets spread around; please do not let the Trolls interfere with the free flow of information.
Charles A. Lurio Says: March 22nd, 2011 at 1:06 pm
“A slight revision to my earlier posting: the test atop the Lynx is one option being considered. Too early to tell if it will actually be exercised.”
Charles. If this clarification is in any way associated with my comments, please understand (at this early stage of development) I am not trying to hold anyone to anything. You presented an informed possibility and I really appreciate it.
A lot of political flack gets spread around; please do not let the Trolls interfere with the free flow of information.
“I would assume that the engine production will not occur in California. They’ll be looking for some place with a sane business environment.”
California’s “insane” (???) business environment is leading the charge on rocket development. Nowhere else even comes close to the same level of Newspace development activity. A business can’t run on tax breaks alone.
California’s “insane” (???) business environment is leading the charge on rocket development.
I said “production,” not development. SoCal has no advantages for that, if it’s to be done cheaply.
I hear tell that McGregor is nice these days.
I also hear tell that it hosted a test burn last week, with another scheduled for this evening.
I’m a little concerned about SpaceX having their headquarters in southern California, since a serious earthquake will happen sooner or later.
Then again, there are only so many former 747 factories to choose from.
rickl Says: “I’m a little concerned about SpaceX having their headquarters in southern California, since a serious earthquake will happen sooner or later.”
I would suspect that if they wanted to open up a second factory, that it would be somewhat near their Florida launch facility. Of course Florida has to worry about hurricane season every year.
I don’t know if there is any location that would be “worry free” from a natural disaster or inclement weather standpoint. Maybe Arizona or New Mexico? No hurricanes or tornados, flooding or earthquakes, and they don’t get too much precipitation of either the wet or frozen kind. Alien invasions?
This kind of scenario is the reason we should have more than one provider for every type of space transportation, and one of the reasons that I don’t like depending on a government-run HLV that has no comparable backup.
While there’s reason to like So Cal, the airspace, the human capital, the state is indeed insane and any sane business is getting the hell out of the state as fast as it can. I’m sure the NewSpace companies would tell you they could be years further along without the insane employment laws (the employer automatically guilty), the insane state tax laws, the insane county tax laws, the insane public sector unions, the insane environmental regulations, the insane hostility to business development. California’s business “environment” is toxic.
Rand,
Good link to the Av Week article.
The thing I find most intriguing is the reference to “build-a-little, test-a-little approach favored by XCOR”. Had the opportunity (in 1993) to be part of a lengthy discussion with the late Max Hunter (on a bus ride back from watching one of the DC-X test flights at White Sands), that was the first time I remember hearing the phrase “build-a-little, test-a-little”.
Hunter was sold on the approach and considered the way new engine design was being approached overly analytical. So we now have what will apparently be entirely private money (truly commercial – even if it is meant to service primarily government purposes) going to develop a significant upper stage capability (it’s nicely sized to be a good EDS stage) being developed using the “build-a-little, test-a-little” method.
This certainly going to be a development to watch.
Joe
the good folks at XCOR believe they have innovation to add to LH2.. and ULA is willing to pay.
I don’t really understand the point of this engine. I still remember way back in the day when the RL-10 was a fairly cheap and effective engine. I know it’s been through some iterations since then…
But I find myself wondering, how many of the cost issues the RL10’s current versions have, if any, are really due to the engine’s construction, or because of the bureaucracy requirements.
I wish I knew how big the cost differential is for current-model RL-10 engines between having them build as a commercial production run of 40-at-a-time and the current government production situation where the major contractors are presumably contracting for three or four engines at a time along with the typical government paperwork requirements.
Argh, should have said “built” instead of “build” up there. Oh well.
While it’s good to see competition for RL-10 and good to see New Space demonstrate its credibility in the eyes of those who are in the best position to judge it and add another revenue stream for commercial space, I do wonder how important it is to replace RL-10. I’ve heard that if mass produced its cost could drop to that of a helicopter engine. That sounds like good enough for the foreseeable future. Of course, without a propellant launch program we are unlikely to see the required high flight rates, but that means that replacing RL-10 would merely be making the best of a bad situation, not an ideal scenario. Still a good thing of course, especially since we seem to be stuck in the bad situation.