Lockheed Martin Tests New Spacecraft Prototype

Hmmzis writes to tell us that Lockheed Martin is using Spaceport America to test a new prototype spacecraft. The prototype is only about one-fifth the size of the projected production model which promises to deliver satellites into orbit at a cheaper cost. "It looks a bit like the space shuttle and would fly to space and return the same way. But even the big version would not carry people, just satellites. The goal is to get to orbit faster and cheaper thanks to an automated reusable spacecraft run by its own computers and just a handful of people for a launch crew."

Prior Art?

[stoolpigeon]

I could swear I saw an Estes [estesrockets.com] sticker on the side of that rocket.

Take a look at this!

[StefanJ]

From the 1971 Centuri Engineering catalog, their concept Space Shuttle [ninfinger.org] model.

Re:

[LWATCDR]

Yea I was thinking the exact same thing. That is a Centuri Space Shuttle...
Wonder if it is meant to be a joke.

Re:

[Provocateur]

It must be a joke. I mean /. with 3 rocket stories in one day? 'Lockheed tests new rocket' 'Fedora 9 cleared for launch' and 'IBM pilot program for internal Mac use'

This is too much, even for an armchair rocket scientist. (Hey Stephen Hawking is a wheelchair physicist, so we could be on the same level.)

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that the Centauri design is ripped straight from various NASA studies of potential Shuttle designs (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/ch8.htm#333), I'm not too surprised to see it make an appearance once again now that the current shuttle concept is appearing to have been a wrong path. Why waste all the work that was don in the late 60s/early 70s on a fully reuseable 2 stage design?

Re:

[tallywacker]

This article is NOT about "Blackswift". Blackswift is a low hypersonic turbo-ramjet concept utilizing the FALCON program's HTV-3 vehicle. Turbo ramjet technology has been around since the SR-71's creation. It was deemed that this technology was a quicker and easier way of achieving low hypersonic flight than scramjet technology which is still in it's infancy.

Re:

[Rei]

On a serious note, anyone think this might be Blackswift [wired.com] we're seeing? Of course, Blackswift, AFAIK, wasn't supposed to be orbital. I'm noticing that it looks awfully similar to parts of their Space Launch Initiative [space.com] proposal. Long, fat fuselage, so it's probably burning hydrogen, whatever it is.

Anyone know what exactly we're looking at here?

Before you ask...

[RobertB-DC]

Yes, there really is a Truth or Consequences, New Mexico [wikipedia.org], home of Spaceport America. It used to be called by the less-than-distinctive moniker "Hot Springs". When the town changed its name as a promotional stunt for a popular radio game show in 1950, they liked the new name so much they kept it. New Mexico rocks.

Re:

[eln]

Unfortunately, the only real things T or C had going for it were Elephant Butte lake and the hot springs. These days, the lake level is constantly being lowered to provide more water to points south, and hardly anyone even knows that the hot springs exist. In addition, much of the tourism related to the lake is now mostly going through the relatively new town of Elephant Butte, so T or C misses out on a lot of that now too.

The T or C names gives the place notoriety from afar, but it makes it harder to dra

Re:

[sleigher]

This may be true but I know that almost every type of firework was available in N.M. and that alone makes it a desireable location..... I still have 1k bottle rockets left!

Re:

[eln]

From what I hear, T or C's economy these days is mostly based on the meth trade, so I don't blame you.

Re:

[timeOday]

T or C is no worse or different than a lot of places in NM, which is to say, not very well off. IMO there are many places here that a lot of Americans would be surprised to see in the US at all. (Sort of how I imagine the Ozarks). But then, a fair number of the people here are on reservations they consider to be sovereign. The islands of non-poverty subsist largely on the federal defense budget, since it's an ideal place for hiding away from prying eyes and setting off explosions.

Re:

[sporkme]

Yeah, there doesn't seem to be moch going on there. [truthorcon...ncesnm.net]

That's a real Beaut!

[zazenation]

"Elephant Butte"?
That's only one letter away from a massive onslaught of crude dick and fart jokes. I'll wager those signs going into town are defaced regularly.

Re:

[sporkme]

I clearly recall that in elementary school, the closing "e" in "Elephant Butte" was painstakingly fingernail-scratched off of every wall map in every classroom. This joke is older than both of us combined. It is one of those fell-off-my-dinosaur deals.

Automated

[calebt3]

The goal is to get to orbit faster and cheaper thanks to an automated reusable spacecraft run by its own computers and just a handful of people for a launch crew.

Of course automated systems would be better for launching satellites.
There is no need for: Retaining an atmosphere
Heating/Cooling
Recyling water (or even bringing water in the first place)
Food
Multiple/redundant backups for life support
Radiation shielding (at least not as much)
Fuel to hoist it all up.

Re:

[vrmlguy]

Most importantly, no need to worry about the spacecraft blowing up.
http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_8705_002A_&page_name=Chapter3 [nasa.gov]

3.9 Crew and Passenger Survival

3.9.1 The space system shall provide the crew and passengers with the capability for emergency egress to a safe haven during prelaunch activities ((Requirement 34469).).

3.9.2 The space system shall provide emergency egress, safe haven, and rescue post touchdown ((Requirement 34470).).

3.9.3 The space system shall provide crew and passenger survival modes throughout the ascent and on-orbit profile (from hatch closure until atmosphere entry interface) in the following order of precedence ((Requirement 34471).):

Abort.
Escape by retaining the crew and passengers encapsulated in a portion of the vehicle that can reenter without crew or passenger fatality or permanent disability.
Escape by removing the crew and passengers from the vehicle.

3.9.4 The program shall ensure that ascent survival modes can be successfully accomplished during any ascent failure mode including, but not limited to, complete loss of thrust, complete loss of control, and catastrophic booster failure at any point during ascent ((Requirement 34473).).

3.9.5 The space system shall provide crew and passenger survival modes throughout the descent profile (from entry interface through landing) in the following order of precedence ((Requirement 34474).):

Design features that increase tolerance to loss of critical functions such that landing can still be accomplished.
Escape.

3.9.6 The program shall ensure that the descent survival modes can be successfully accomplished for loss of critical functions including, but not limited to, loss of active attitude control and loss of primary power ((Requirement 34476).).

And a bit later:

3.12 Flight Termination

3.12.1 Flight termination shall include features that allow sufficient time for abort or escape prior to activation of the destruct system ((Requirement 34505).).

These things can really add to the cost of a vehicle.

Re:

[jfengel]

Especially since they all add weight, and more weight means more fuel. And more fuel means even more fuel, because some of the fuel goes to lifting the rest of the fuel to the point where it's needed.

Re:Automated

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I think the reusable spacecraft is a dubious idea, at least having the final stage be reusable. The weight added to be able to survive reentry and land is still significant. Even if you don't have a passenger compartment, there's still the weight of the wings, as well as the weight of all the thermal protection materials to protect the entire spacecraft. Then there's the structure needed to handle that extra weight, and the extra fuel needed to lift that extra weight.

Re:

[Marsala]

They might be looking at trying to retrieve stuff from orbit in addition to delivery of new satellites. Kind of like NASA's C-shuttle program or something.

Of course, in the finest tradition of /. I have failed to RTFA before posting, so... :)

Re:

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I did open the article and skim it, but didn't fully read it. There are times when returning satellites might be useful, but I think it's only been done a few times, the last time I counted, twice. The one time I remember is bringing back LDEF, they wanted to see how different things withstood long term exposure to space, and examine them in detail.

Re:

[Kogun]

Don't make the mistake of only looking at the vehicle itself. Any launch vehicle is part of a larger system and the entire cost of the system is what must be considered. The primary goal is to reduce the cost per pound to orbit. The material considerations you cite for the craft are insignificant compared to the labor cost for a factory full of workers to create throwaway vehicles for twenty years. Likewise, the extraordinary labor costs for preparing a shuttle (STS) for another launch is why it is a fi

Re:

[holywarrior21c]

There is no need for: Retaining an atmosphere Heating/Cooling Recyling water (or even bringing water in the first place)

I get your point but few things are necessary on unmanned ships. Many equipments require proper heating and cooling. water is excellent source of coolant and also used in heating. In this process water is often recycled so it doesn't have to carry more unecessarilly.

Re:

[call-me-kenneth]

The idea of reusable space craft just makes more sense.

Maybe it will make sense one day when materials science is up to the job, and building and flying novel engine and aeroshell stacks straight off the simulator is down pat, but for now straight stacks with the payload at the top is the hands-down winner on all counts that matter except "how cool it looks" (which, admittedly, has a non-zero value.) However ask the families of those who've lost their lives on the Shuttle where through accidents that wouldn't have happened on a conventional launcher/lander whe

Re:

[Rei]

What manned stack with a statistically significant number of manned launches are you thinking of that has a better safety track record than the shuttle? Soyuz's record is about the same. Sure, they haven't had any manned Soyuz losses recently, but that's demonstrably just luck; unmanned Soyuz keep blowing up (and killing ground crew, too). And there have been a number of manned Soyuz close calls, too.

Sadly, a ~2% rate of total loss isn't a bad number when it comes to manned spaceflight.

Re:

[call-me-kenneth]

No-one's lost their life on a Soyuz vehicle since 1971, and they're still flying today. They should have a sign up outside Baikonur... "Safety is #1! [ 37 ] years since a fatal accident". And of course NASA are switching back to a traditional geometry for Ares / CEV, the Shuttle replacement. Oh and goodness, me, ESA just launched a pressurised, man-rated vehicle which is now part of the ISS on an Ariane 5. Goodness, that ATV sure is a neat looking bit of kit; stick a small thruster on the back and you've

Re:

[Rei]

No-one's lost their life on a Soyuz vehicle since 1971, and they're still flying today.

Did you not read what I just wrote? "Sure, they haven't had any manned Soyuz losses recently, but that's demonstrably just luck; unmanned Soyuz keep blowing up (and killing ground crew, too)".

They should have a sign up outside Baikonur... "Safety is #1! [ 37 ] years since a fatal accident".

Try 5 1/2 years [spacetoday.net]. Yes, he was on the ground and was killed by falling debris from an exploding Soyuz, but it was still an *exploding

Re:

[dryeo]

Soyuz_T-10-1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_T-10-1 [wikipedia.org] blew up on the launch pad. The crew survived due to the Launch Escape System.

Re:

[Rei]

They only escaped two seconds before the rocket blew up. It was a miracle that they survived. The crew was badly injured and wasn't able to fly so they couldn't complete their mission. Another launch escape occurred on 18a. They got a *21g acceleration*, recovered, hit the ground, and almost rolled off a cliff (which would have almost certainly been fatal, as the craft had already used its retrorockets). The mission commander was so badly injured that he was never able to fly again.

Soyuz is not the mir

Re:

[dryeo]

Soyuz is not the miraculously safe rocket that most people like to pretend it is.

Isn't safe rocket an oxymoron? My point was that having the rocket blow up does not automatically mean a death sentence for the crew. I think it is still amazing that the crew survived both T-10-1 and 18a. 18a was blasting pretty well straight down when the escape system kicked in.

Re:

[iso-cop]

There is a lot more than you think going on a Spaceport America. It hosted the 2006 X-Prize Cup as a start. Even though it is still under construction, UP Aerospace and Virgin Galactic have made their home at these facilities and launched a number of suborbital flights as milestones toward viable commercial space transport. Other interesting ideas like the Rocket Racing League are springing up, which are not orbital, but interesting nonetheless. In case you are wondering, I am a New Mexico resident but

Re:

[call-me-kenneth]

Right, but my point (which I must have expressed in too trollish a manner) was that vehicles that move in the air are called aircraft. Once they've launched something into orbit, then they can call themselves a spaceport. Otherwise it's like the sign on Del Trotter's van "New York Paris Tokyo Peckham"...

So, by your definition

[WindBourne]

when building an 8 lane highway and until it is open, it should be called a gravel road? Do not get me wrong. The highway is not a highway UNTIL it is open(i.e. born). But it is still a highway in progress, and generally most of us will call it either highway, or an under development highway.

On the dole

[dj245]

"On April 22 Sierra County residents will vote on a quarter-cent sales tax to help pay for the spaceport. Neighboring Dona Ana County has already approved a similar tax, and Otero County has yet to schedule a vote."

I think this should be the story here. Why should state taxpayers dumping money in Lockheed's pockets? I have never seen a subsidy or bounty (as they were called long ago) that did more good than harm.

Yeah I know, its America and that the way things work now. But that doesn't mean these actions shouldn't provoke outcry.

For the same reason I pay a sales tax surcharge

[gelfling]

For the RBC Center stadium in Raleigh, NC which is owned and operated by NC State for the benefit of NC State and any and all public and private venues operated there.

Re:

[eln]

The spaceport is intended to be a complex from which various companies can launch and test spacecraft, not Lockheed Martin specifically. So, it's sort of like taxpayers funding an airport, which is certainly not unprecedented. The difference, of course, is it's funding a location from which to operate an industry that may not take off (pardon the pun) for decades, if ever. So, there is a definite risk.

However, having spent a lot of time in Las Cruces, which is less than an hour south, I can tell you that

Re:

[sporkme]

On the surface, the sales tax increase is local government deciding to help citizens along in spurring economic development in their immediate vicinity, so that they might reap the benefits of jobs and peripheral economic development to come. Good news, right?

In reality, it is just a tax hike. While some money might make it in some ambiguous way to the project, you will quickly see your government hollow out the concept and replace it with "IOU's" which will never be repaid.

READ: You just got hosed.

How about the reverse trip

[pembo13]

ie. to start removing trash from orbit around us. It isn't as if the trash is providing significant shielding to us.

Re:

[Digi-John]

Yeah, if German schoolkids are to be believed, that damn space junk will bump the Apophis asteroid into a more dangerous orbit! Curses!

Re:

[calebt3]

Because it would take extensive maneuvering to get near and catch a simple bolt. Then you have more extensive maneuvering to get the nut a hundred feet away. Rinse and Repeat.

Re:

[pembo13]

So you're saying the reason to not do it is because it is difficult and expensive?

Re:

[FleaPlus]

So you're saying the reason to not do it is because it is difficult and expensive?

Difficult and expensive enough that the cost would be more than the expected benefit, yes.

Re:

[pembo13]

I guess, as long as a wayward piece of junk doesn't fall on some prized property of (America|Russia). If it takes out some villager in Africa?

Re:

[Z34107]

I guess, as long as a wayward piece of junk doesn't fall on some prized property of (America|Russia). If it takes out some villager in Africa?

You think any piece of junk is going to survive re-entry?

A few pieces must; how often do you think it happens?

Suppose that by some miracle, a piece of space junk survives falling several miles through the atmosphere. Does water cover most of our planet, or does Africa cover most of our planet?

Such inflammatory language over a problem that doesn't exist. If

Re:

[scarpa]

The junk is far more likely to damage new or existing satellites than any African villager.

Re:

[calebt3]

Obscenely so. It would end up costing thousands (if not millions) to get to that bolt.

Re:

[MTgeekMAN]

Giant electromagnets on giant fishing poles attached to my giant robot arm!

It won't get cheap enough until...

[Dr. Manhattan]

...we switch from chemical rockets to nuclear [nextbigfuture.com] ones. Chemical reactions just don't have the power-per-mass ratio that nuclear ones do.

Re:

[ZonkerWilliam]

Without a doubt we would be much further ahead with space explorations, dare I say colonization of the solar system. But then we would have to deal with the "potential" fallout of radioactive material if there was any kind of crash, explosion, whatever. Sometimes I think we like to frighten ourselves for the heck of it

Re:

[Dr. Manhattan]

Chemical rockets need to be basically thin balloons full of fuel. Nuclear rockets have ISP to spare, and can be much tougher. Even then, a big nuclear rocket would need about 10 lbs of nucleotides; old nuclear tests put something like three orders of magnitude more into the atmosphere and didn't kill anybody. Read the article.

Re:

[ZonkerWilliam]

I did. I then read about Cosmos 954 [archives.cbc.ca]. I was referring more to the fact that we have had multiple launches with radioactive fuel on-board and very little fallout from them, such as Cosmos 954 that littered radioactive fuel across 124,000 square miles of land, and yet no fatalities. Nuclear would open up the solar system if we were just not so timid.

Re:

[Dr. Manhattan]

Ah, I misunderstood the tone there. My apologies.

Re:

[DynaSoar]

It would be pure st00pid to build a nuclear ground to orbit to ground space plane. Without sufficient shielding anything electronic aboard would have its circuits destroyed. With sufficient shielding it'd never get off the ground.

In any case, a nuclear propulsion design was considered for a cruise missile platform for nuclear warhead delivery. The "Flying Crowbar" http://www.merkle.com/pluto/pluto.html [merkle.com] was probably one of the all time worst designs for a weapon or a flying device. Even those parts not inten

Re:

[Dr. Manhattan]

It would be pure st00pid to build a nuclear ground to orbit to ground space plane. Without sufficient shielding anything electronic aboard would have its circuits destroyed. With sufficient shielding it'd never get off the ground.

Forgive me, but that's spoken like someone who hasn't done the math. Go read the actual, y'know, article I linked to.

Re:

[DynaSoar]

It would be pure st00pid to build a nuclear ground to orbit to ground space plane. Without sufficient shielding anything electronic aboard would have its circuits destroyed. With sufficient shielding it'd never get off the ground.

Forgive me, but that's spoken like someone who hasn't done the math. Go read the actual, y'know, article I linked to.

I've been doing my own propulsion, aerodynamics and flight profile math for years; I have a high powered rocketry license, and design and build my own.

I've read TFA. It doesn't do much math either. It just quotes someone else's figures, badly. I'm not going to bother checking up on all of them because I'm confident the writer has done the same with those that he's done with a few of the details given -- selective reproduction without checking them himself and showing that. As I will show, the author is alm

That may come to be

[WindBourne]

There are some who are claiming that uranium may be on the moon in the same way that he3 is; via asteroids. In particular, some of the light flashes are now thought to be the decay products of uranium (radon). That means that if we find it there, then we will see a surge in nuclear rockets. I guess that is a case of let the good times flow.

Re:

[confused one]

I regret to inform you that this isn't likely to happen for at least 50 years. The plans for the first manned Mars missions don't currently include nuclear power; although the VASIMR propulsion guys are basically saying that if you provide them with a nuclear power plant for their engine, they can cut Earth to Mars transport time to under 3 months. (That's using current technology). The VX-200 200kW engine is supposed to be test fired this year. I'd consider this to be one of the more exciting options s

Re:

[nasor]

I have never seen a serious design for a closed-cycle gas core nuclear rocket engine that has a thrust/weight ratio greater than one. All that specific impulse is useless if it can't get off the ground. In the essay you link to, the author seems to simply assume that it's possible to build a nuclear lightbulb engine with 1.2 million lb of thrust that masses 60 ton. If you have any sort of reference to a source that indicates this is possible, I would be very interested to see it. But this seems badly out of

Resemblences

[sabre86]

It reminds me less of the Shuttle and more of the X-34 [wikipedia.org] and the X-37 [wikipedia.org] family [wikipedia.org].

I am excited about the operational model, though. The large number of people involved in most launch vehicle operations is a huge fixed cost that pretty negates the advantage of launching smaller payloads on smaller, cheaper rockets. Sounds like it has a lot of promise. I wonder if they're thinking about an air launched version as well, Pegasus [wikipedia.org] style. If the rocket is no larger than a Space Ship Two, then it could maybe use a White

I knew I've seen it

[DynaSoar]

In fact I think I built one years past. Probably the Centauri kit noted above.

The bird in TFA is probably not the one L-M will build (if they do). They have many other better designs for winged and/or lifting body spacecraft.

Re:

[DynaSoar]

Update: The design is presently available as a "retro" kit from a kit manufacturer that specializes in such things, Semroc. http://rocketdungeon.blogspot.com/2008/04/lockmart-model-spaceplane-flown-at.html [blogspot.com]

Good to know L-M didn't need to put a lot of money into design development. They probably did, but they didn't need to.

Time mag's man of the year should be

[WindBourne]

Elon musk. The reason is that he has single handley been responsible for changing MAJOR companies. He starts tesla and suddenly Chevy has no choice but to do the volt. Before some of the naysayers spring up, google for tesla and volt and interview. You will find that the man at GM behind the volt fully credits Musk as pushing alive the volt when the CEO had actually killed the program (and it was at the right time).
Likewise, spacex is the company who was pushing out rockets that will take only a handful of ppl to run it. L-Mart has NO incentive to do this. For proof, simply read entering space by zubrin who was told by top executives that they would never willingly walk away from their rockets; far too much money. But check falcon1 costing only 7 million against ULA's smallest costing something like 90 million and even orbital small pegasus with smaller payload costing 30 million. ULA/LMart has no choice but to do something similar. No doubt this will be expanded for man. Why? becuase of bigelow.

Finally, Musk is making solar PV cost about half the money by changing how installs occur.

All in all, this import shows exactly WHY we need ppl like him.

Thank you elon.

Re:

[DerekLyons]

Likewise, spacex is the company who was pushing out rockets that will take only a handful of ppl to run it

They may be 'pushing them out', but they sure as heck aren't flying them. Two (much delayed) launches to date - two failures. No announced date for the third launch.

L-Mart has NO incentive to do this.

Other than NASA's COTS initiative, which involves not only SpaceX but OSC and a half a dozen others. Said COTS initiative just a _big_ boost as NASA announced today that they will not b

Re:

[O2H2]

Trust me as a designer at ULA we have EVERY motivation to reduce costs and improve performance. We do this on a daily basis. But costs are not driven primarily by design. They are driven by rate. If you order a dozen of anything complicated it will cost a fortune. Order one that has to do exotic stuff like accelerate 20 metric tons to 30 km/sec and it is very expensive. Even more dominating is the cost in extremely talented people to support such exotic machines. Look up how much Ferrari or McLaren spe

Re:

[WindBourne]

Meanwhile stop making a company like ULA into some sort of demonic barrier to human space exploration. It is comprised of thousands of dedicated and supremely talented folks many of whom share your desire to get into space in a big way. We have the privilege of confronting these technical challenges head on. We take that very seriously. Industries and governments count on us to supply a critical need. This is not a casual hobby.
First, just so that you know, I have worked on NASA projects (ground control fo

Re:

[O2H2]

A few corrections to your assessment. Let us focus on Atlas. The Atlas you see today is hugely changed from the Atlas of 1980 or even 1995. During the design of the Atlas III and V we reduced the cost to LEO by 50%. That is a non-trivial effort. Yes we still burn kerosene and LO2 and LH2. That is unchanged. The techniques we use are much more refined and systems are much more elegant. I realize you would not have visibility into this but it is a fact. We commonly now have performance excesses that are

Too little, too late...

[Ecuador]

NASA should have just bought the Buran [wikipedia.org] after the fall of the Soviet Union (I imagine the price would be Alaska level) and only use crews for complex missions, satellites should be sent without the need of astronauts. Oh well...

Re:

[FleaPlus]

NASA should have just bought the Buran after the fall of the Soviet Union (I imagine the price would be Alaska level) and only use crews for complex missions, satellites should be sent without the need of astronauts.

The crew that makes spaceflight so costly isn't the one flying on it, but the one on the ground that builds and maintains the craft. As far as I know, Buran wouldn't have been much cheaper in that regard.

Re:

[Ecuador]

Have you missed the fact that there have been fatal accidents and the Space Shuttle has been grounded for extended periods due to that?
I wasn't talking about saving cost, but about saving lives. If I remember correctly, the Buran even had ejection seats!
Of course, Astronauts are not as cheap as you think, as their cost is not their salary, but the entire training and support system for them. Also, you could have a stripped-down Buran-style shuttle that has no life support (thus less weight) just for unmanne

Winged Spacecraft Are a Waste of Time, Mostly

[reallocate]

Just to be annoyingly pedantic, you really can't "fly into space". Flying involves air and a lifting surface. Ergo, you can't fly into space.

During its ascent to orbit, the Shuttle's wings are useless, just so much dead weight. They only come into play during reentry for a few short moments following reentry on approach to the landing site.

Putting wings on an LEO spacecraft serves the purpose of trying to make the thing reusable. But, the complexity and cost of the Shuttle, along with un-likelihood that a

Re:

[trout007]

The Shuttles wings provide lift during most of the re-entry. One of the reasons for such large winds was when it was in the planning stage the Air Force wanted to do a once around spy mission. They would put a big telescope in the payload bay and launch south from Vandenburg. Then after one orbit they would land at Edwards. To do this they needed to fly (hypersonic glide) to get the 1000 mile cross range capability. So the shuttles wind provide lift all during reentry not just a few short moments on approac

Re:Winged Spacecraft Are a Waste of Time, Mostly

[iamlucky13]

For the record, this isn't a winged spacecraft. It's a winged first stage. The article didn't catch on to it, but if you look up info on the Ares-Falcon proposal the Air Force has been mulling around for years, you'll see this is probably the same project. Weight is much less of a premium (still somewhat, however) on the first stage, because it spends less of the flight attached. Generally the first stage only contributes less 25% of the delta-V, meaning it only contributes 1/16 of final kinetic energy of the payload. So the weight of the wings doesn't hurt much.

Additionally, a first stage doesn't need a real thermal protection system. It's one less element to lift and greatly simplifies reuse. Those pointy wings on the Lockheed demonstrator would be terrible from a heat-flow standpoint anyway.

The tradeoff of weight allows controlled flyback, which makes recovery of the first stage far simpler than fishing it out of the water and cleaning it (surviving that requires parachutes and flotation provisions anyway, which although lighter than wings, are still a mass penalty). Getting a structurally intact first stage is a lot simpler than a structurally intact orbiter.

So Lockheed actually is persuing an alternative approach to reusability here.

By the way, SpaceX claims they plan to recover, refurbish, and reuse the first stage of both their Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 rockets, and the second stage of the Falcon 9. I'm honestly not sure how they intend to do the second stage, but the first stage parachutes to the ocean and is picked up by a recovery ship. Their one attempt at doing it so far failed.

Re:

[reallocate]

If memory serves, at least one of the original notions of a Shuttle design included a winged first stage. One version, I believe, was crewed, with the intention that the crew would fly it back to base for reuse.

It's worth remembering that reusability is a means to an end -- lower costs -- and not an end in itself. The Shuttle has been unable to fly with enough frequency to reach that end. In hindsight, I suspect a persuasive case could be made that rather a lot of money would have been saved if we'd flown t

Multi-use Single Flight System

[FurtiveGlancer]

What we really need is an automated system that can take off, launch a few satellites, gather some dead or nearly dead TOCO birds and burn them all up by exploding on re-entry. One flight, multiple missions, cleaner orbits. No need for durability beyond one launch. Let the atmoshpere reclaim the elements we took from the ground. Now that's recycling.