NEW LauncherOne SLV

[blackshire]

Hello All,

Eclectic entrepreneur and unicorn magnet Sir Richard Branson has started yet another space venture, one that will use Virgin Galactic's WhiteKnightTwo (the twin-fuselage launch aircraft for their SpaceShipTwo suborbital tourism spaceplanes) to air-launch a new expendable, small-satellite launch vehicle called LauncherOne. This two-stage SLV will use liquid oxygen (LOX) and kerosene in both stages, and its second stage will be restartable. Also:

There are already sufficient illustrations (as well as a video) of LauncherOne, as well as partial dimensions of the vehicle, to permit Sport Scale documentation of the vehicle (web site links to this scale material are provided below). As the Virgin Galactic web site says:

"As a general rule, LauncherOne in its most typical configuration will be capable of delivering on the order of 500 lb (225 kg) to low inclination Low Earth Orbit, and 225 lb (100 kg) to a higher altitude, Sun-Synchronous Low Earth Orbit. Other configurations may offer significantly greater performance." And:

"The maximum allowable payload volume is quite large for a launch vehicle of this class. Payloads will be accommodated within a fairing approximately 40 inches (1 meter) in diameter, with a cylindrical shape for the first 30 inches (77 cm) and a conical section above." Below are the web site links. They are:

LauncherOne Introduction:
http://www.virgingalactic.com/launcherone

LauncherOne Concept of Operations:
http://www.virgingalactic.com/launcherOne/concept-of-operations/

Virgin Galactic LauncherOne news:
http://www.virgingalactic.com/news/

LauncherOne video:
http://www.space.com/16529-launcherone-virgin-galactic-reveals-orbital-rocket-video.html

SpaceFlightNow LauncherOne article:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1207/11virgin/

Link to more LauncherOne articles:
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=launcherone+virgin&oq=LauncherOne+&gs_l=hp.1.1.0i10i30j0i30j0i10i30.2173.9323.1.16113.12.12.0.0.0.1.1973.17175.6-1j6j5.12.0...0.0.dbOqDDzRMdg&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=961ee5d9b4372d3a&biw=792&bih=377

I hope this material will be helpful.

[chadrog]

I hope he's very careful, sounds dangerous to have unicorns coming at you. Sorry, couldn't resist. :D

[blackshire]

I hope he's very careful, sounds dangerous to have unicorns coming at you. Sorry, couldn't resist. :DIndeed. :-) I similarly couldn't resist (because of the Virgin connection...) :-)

[chadrog]

Made me think of this:
http://www.mcphee.com/shop/products/Avenging-Unicorn-Play-Set.html

[blackshire]

Made me think of this:
http://www.mcphee.com/shop/products/Avenging-Unicorn-Play-Set.htmlGee, I wonder why its listing says, "Sorry, this item is no longer available. Please see some of our related products below." :-) Also, the "Fairy Swatter" is so deliciously yet innocently un-PC... :-)

[luke strawwalker]

These guys seem to come out with new "launchers" about every other week... I'll believe it when I see it...

Maybe he should just focus on actually getting the SS2 and WK2 actually in the air and flying first??

Bout like that rather silly (IMHO) idea of hanging a Falcon 5 under a supergigantic version of a White Knight type aircraft... not particularly realistic I'd say-- at least not in any "near term"... maybe after a decade or two of design and development, if at all...

Later! OL JR :)

[blackshire]

These guys seem to come out with new "launchers" about every other week... I'll believe it when I see it...

Maybe he should just focus on actually getting the SS2 and WK2 actually in the air and flying first??I agree, although an unmanned SLV is easier to bring to flight status than a manned suborbital spacecraft (for legal/liability reasons alone).Bout like that rather silly (IMHO) idea of hanging a Falcon 5 under a supergigantic version of a White Knight type aircraft... not particularly realistic I'd say-- at least not in any "near term"... maybe after a decade or two of design and development, if at all...I noticed an interesting similarity between Virgin Galactic's LauncherOne and SpaceX's StratoLaunch winged Falcon 5 vehicles--they both lack tail surfaces. LauncherOne has flip-out swept wings, but has no horizontal stabilizer or vertical stabilizer. The winged Falcon 5 has no vertical stabilizer (although being a tailless delta-winged design, its wing doubles as a horizontal stabilizer). Since both vehicles will be powered throughout the atmospheric portions of their ascent trajectories, their gimbaled rocket engines will provide pitch and yaw steering, thus eliminating the mass and drag of tail surfaces.

[luke strawwalker]

I agree, although an unmanned SLV is easier to bring to flight status than a manned suborbital spacecraft (for legal/liability reasons alone).I noticed an interesting similarity between Virgin Galactic's LauncherOne and SpaceX's StratoLaunch winged Falcon 5 vehicles--they both lack tail surfaces. LauncherOne has flip-out swept wings, but has no horizontal stabilizer or vertical stabilizer. The winged Falcon 5 has no vertical stabilizer (although being a tailless delta-winged design, its wing doubles as a horizontal stabilizer). Since both vehicles will be powered throughout the atmospheric portions of their ascent trajectories, their gimbaled rocket engines will provide pitch and yaw steering, thus eliminating the mass and drag of tail surfaces.


OH... Stratolaunch has WINGS now?? I admit I haven't followed this thing since it was announced... seemed rather rediculous at the time. The structural requirements for a long vehicle like a rocket, fully fueled, slung horizontally under a carrier aircraft at takeoff and ascent and cruise phase are MARKEDLY different than the loads and structural requirements for a booster during the vertical ascent phase... not to mention the sloshing issues of a long cylindrical rocket slung under a plane horizontally for takeoff... the whole thing just seems outlandishly Rube Goldberg to me... When you add in the monumental size of the carrier aircraft, which would make a 747 look like a Piper Cub beside it... it just smacks to me of vaporware or dreamware...

Lets just say I'll believe it when I see it... Besides, NASA has looked at such systems and concluded that basically an air-breathing "first stage" in the form of a "standard" (not hypersonic) carrier aircraft launching a rocket-powered upper stage to orbit could only contribute about 6% of the velocity and lift requirements needed to attain orbit (IIRC), and therefore the entire benefit of such a system was 'down in the noise' compared to more conventional systems which are MUCH easier and cheaper to develop with simpler flight regimes and much more probability of success...

Personally I think they'd be better off working on flyback LRB's like the Russians have been tinkering with for years... their Baykal boosters are pretty neat idea... LRB's using kerolox for propulsion at liftoff for vertical rockets, then separating and deploying folding wings and jettisoning a cover over an airbreathing jet engine in the nosecone, running on kerosene residuals in the rocket propellant tank for flyback cruise and automated landing...


Later! OL JR :)

[blackshire]

OH... Stratolaunch has WINGS now?? I admit I haven't followed this thing since it was announced... seemed rather rediculous at the time. The structural requirements for a long vehicle like a rocket, fully fueled, slung horizontally under a carrier aircraft at takeoff and ascent and cruise phase are MARKEDLY different than the loads and structural requirements for a booster during the vertical ascent phase... not to mention the sloshing issues of a long cylindrical rocket slung under a plane horizontally for takeoff... the whole thing just seems outlandishly Rube Goldberg to me... When you add in the monumental size of the carrier aircraft, which would make a 747 look like a Piper Cub beside it... it just smacks to me of vaporware or dreamware...The air-launched X-1, X-2, X-15, M2-F2/3, HL-10, and X-24A/B didn't have any "show-stopper" propellant sloshing problems. As far as I know, the StratoLaunch Falcon 5 design has always had wings (when it was announced, the illustrations showed it having clipped delta wings).Lets just say I'll believe it when I see it...The articles indicate that LauncherOne has been and is being funded by a UAE (United Arab Emirates) firm, and that Virgin Galactic has been developing the design since 2008. Also, WhiteKnightTwo is now flying, the first SpaceShipTwo is progressing through its glide test series well, its hybrid rocket motor has been successfully static fired on the ground, and powered flight tests of SpaceShipTwo should begin in a few months, so they are moving forward tangibly. With LauncherOne thus funded (plus it has already garnered several launch contracts), launching satellites with it looks like a good secondary stream of income that the WhiteKnightTwo aircraft could generate.Besides, NASA has looked at such systems and concluded that basically an air-breathing "first stage" in the form of a "standard" (not hypersonic) carrier aircraft launching a rocket-powered upper stage to orbit could only contribute about 6% of the velocity and lift requirements needed to attain orbit (IIRC), and therefore the entire benefit of such a system was 'down in the noise' compared to more conventional systems which are MUCH easier and cheaper to develop with simpler flight regimes and much more probability of success...No argument here, but air-launched systems do have operational advantages (all-azimuth launch capability, more flexible launch times, no need for capital-intensive fixed launch pads, etc.). Also, the first stage engine can have the same nozzle area ratio as an upper stage engine, which makes it more efficient. Teledyne Ryan's 4 RL-10 + 1 SSME powered, 747-launched Spaceplane design study in the 1980s showed that unmodified RL-10 upper stage engines could be ignited at 30,000 feet with no overexpansion (plume separation from the nozzle walls) problems, and Virgin Galactic's LauncherOne will be launched at 50,000 feet. (The high-pressure SSME, of course, could function from sea level to space, as can the high-pressure RS-68 and RS-68A engines.)Personally I think they'd be better off working on flyback LRB's like the Russians have been tinkering with for years... their Baykal boosters are pretty neat idea... LRB's using kerolox for propulsion at liftoff for vertical rockets, then separating and deploying folding wings and jettisoning a cover over an airbreathing jet engine in the nosecone, running on kerosene residuals in the rocket propellant tank for flyback cruise and automated landing..."I like Baik!" (Baikal, that is...) For bigger vehicles (LauncherOne is a smallsat SLV), I also think Baikal would be great. I wish Aerojet, TRW, or some such US aerospace firm would make a deal with them so that it could be developed and put into operation.