I’m seeing tweets from the ISDC that Jeff Greason is saying Lynx rollout and flight tests are about a year from now.
This is interesting:
XCOR has plans to develop an orbital vehicle.
Jeff has been saying that he has some ideas along those lines. I wonder how much he’s revealing publicly?
[Update a while later]
A lot more XCOR tweets over at Space Transport News.
…plans to develop an orbital…
For which planet? š
To paraphrase Rand: “Don’t design for destinations, design for capabilities.”
I think every NewSpace outfit “plans” to build an orbital vehicle at some point. I’m not sure what this statement reveals.
It reveals that he thinks that he’s figured out how to do it, once he gets the money.
Donāt design for destinations, design for capabilities
Unless the destinations have different masses and/or atmospheres, eh?
Ok… we’re talking about earth orbit right? Has he really figured out how to do it?
It reveals that he thinks that heās figured out how to do it, once he gets the money
Well. There are several levels to a “has it figured out”, right. Kistler, Beal and Roton had it ALL figured out, too. Rocketplane has had it figured out for a loong time. A bunch of X-Prize contestants were all so figured out that nothing was figured in.
Yes. we’ve been working the problem for quite a while. Just because we don’t talk about what we’re doing doesn’t mean we aren’t doing it. š
Design for the capability to deal with a wide range of masses and atmospheres.
If you could take just one person to orbit in a fuel and go vehicle that would be a game changer.
Well. There are several levels to a āhas it figured outā, right. Kistler, Beal and Roton had it ALL figured out, too. Rocketplane has had it figured out for a loong time. A bunch of X-Prize contestants were all so figured out that nothing was figured in.
Fairly mixed bag of seeds for doubt you’re packin’ there. Kistler, Beal and Roton were real companies with real engineering. Only a handful of the X-Prize contestants could say the same.
XCOR has a pretty good – and long – track record of plotting out paths, long and circuitous though they may seem, to large destinations with lesser intermediate destinations on the way, then putting one foot in front of the other repeatedly to get to them all in proper sequence. They always stick their necks out just far enough to move forward, but not so far as to fall over on their faces. As an organization, XCOR appears to have two core competencies – aerospace engineering and risk management. Jeff G. seems to have a gift for this sort of fine control and chess-like strategizing and applies it to his mouth too. XCOR doesn’t seem to put anything out in public until just the right time. I don’t know just when XCOR will get to orbit, but I, for one, wouldn’t be the least bit inclined to bet against them. They won’t be the first to arrive at that particular dance, but I suspect they’ll turn a few heads when they do.
There would seem to be a fairly clear path to orbit with refining and scaling up the Lynx and the pod that goes on top of it. I would guess they will initially aim for something sized for say two people to orbit, or pilot plus small payload, or all payload.
The partnership with Masten is interesting. I had thought they might try placing an orbital Lynx type vehicle on top of a scaled up Lynx first stage. I am now suspicious that they intend to use a Masten type vehicle for their second (and third?) stage. This makes quite a lot of sense. Carrying a Masten type vehicle in the pod would give them a reusable fast turn around vehicle that could get quite close to orbit – with minimal extra development.
Masten brings a lot of demonstrable, real-world expertise in avionics and control systems to the recently announced partnership with XCOR. There may be some specific vehicle-related technology of interest also, but I think the partnership will be going forward – including to orbit – on XCOR iron and Masten code.
Greason’s orbital concept has been glossed over a few times, basically it’s a really big plane with the Lynx on top.
I was in this talk and approached the podium at the end. I was the second person there. Jeff talked to the first person, who took too long, and then his helper played interference as Jeff walked around me to shake hands with Buzz Aldrin. I can’t blame him, he had limited time and all I was going to say is that he’s doing a good job.
I’ve yet to talk to Buzz Aldrin, even though he’s sat next to me in 5 or 6 sessions. I just have nothing to say.
Trent,
Maybe you could break the ice by complimenting Buzz on his dancing.
Fairly mixed bag of seeds for doubt youāre packinā there.
Thats my whole point. Saying “someone has figured a path to orbit out” doesnt really mean anything, as there are various levels of “figured out” and based on past history most of them dont result in much.
Dancing hell, I would complement him on his right hook!
…there are various levels of āfigured outā and based on past history most of them don’t result in much.
My point was that you don’t seem to be acknowledging, or perhaps even aware of, the quite various levels of “figured out” you pay nominal lip service to, then lump together in an undifferentiated mass. A number of the X-Prize teams – I won’t name any specific names – struck me as just barely beyond the kids-with-Estes-kits-in-the-park level of seriousness. Roton and Kistler, though, were real enterprises with real engineers and significant amounts of bent metal when they went belly up. Their technical concepts would very likely have worked, but the business acumen of their executives was insufficient to get them to profitability on the available seed money.
As an aside, I would rate NASA’s soon-to-be-late-I-hope Ares/Constellation program as falling somewhere between the more giggle-worthy of the X-Prize teams and more or less honorable failures like Roton and Kistler. Kistler, for example, brought in too many NASA veterans with no business experience toward the end, spent too much money and went broke before they could finish their first test article. They were, however, at least attempting to build what they actually intended to fly. NASA’s Ares 1-X flight, in contrast, was the equivalent of a mockup built out of parts scrounged from the back of dad’s garage. Even the dimmest of failed private space companies never scrupled to do anything quite that goofy.
If you see XCOR as being on a par with the flakier elements in the shallow end of the X-Prize contestant pool you are entitled to your opinion. You are not, however, entitled to have anyone who has been paying attention the last couple of decades respect said opinion.
If you see XCOR as being on a par with the flakier elements in the shallow end of the X-Prize contestant pool you are entitled to your opinion.
I have not expressed, nor do i possess such an opinion. Read back in the thread.
Brock said : I think every NewSpace outfit āplansā to build an orbital vehicle at some point. Iām not sure what this statement reveals.
Rand said: It reveals that he thinks that heās figured out how to do it, once he gets the money.
My point was, it doesnt reveal anything indeed, as illustrated by countless examples before.
This is not to take away anything from XCOR’s accomplishments, or to doubt their capability or potential.
Just that when someone “thinks that they have figured out a way to orbit, once he gets the money”, its quite meaningless milestone.
Just that when someone āthinks that they have figured out a way to orbit, once he gets the moneyā, its quite meaningless milestone.
Not when that same someone has previously and consistently said that they hadn’t figured it out yet.
BTW: The PDF download on their site about the Lynx vehicle shows in one instance a dorsal pod containing an orbital upper stage which the Lynx would launch at apogee. This isn’t new. People just need to pay attention. The file has been on their website for a while.
I think that Jeff means reusably, not with an expendable upper stage.
That’s the upper stage for the Lynx. Orbital vehicle is whole different cat.