roger@telesoft.UUCP (Roger Arnold @prodigal) (10/14/86)
> ... > Anyone on the net know about hybrids and why they seem to be dead? > What I can recall about hybrids, off the top of my head, is this: 1) They were being developed and promoted by a private company, whose name, I believe, was "Star Struck". I could be wrong about the name; I may be confusing them with another group; 2) The company that was developing them was a serious outfit. My impression is that it had a number of young, idealistic employees, but they were bright and competent. The largest investor was one of the principals in Apple Computers, though I don't recall who. Anyway, they conducted a number of successful static test firings and pretty well proved that the concept was feasible. They even got to the point of making a test launch of the first stage of the orbital rocket that they were trying to develop. The test launch was largely successful; it was marred slightly, as I recall, by a malfunction in the guidance system midway through the test, but the hybrid rocket itself performed well. 3) Unfortuanately, it took them about twice as long and cost three times as much to get to the point of that successful test launch as they had originally planned. On that basis, their financial backer(s?) concluded that they would not have the resources to carry the development through to the point of a marketable launch vehicle. So they threw a big party, updated their resumes, and went off to seek greener pastures with the established aerospace companies. Or at least that's how I heard it. If anyone out there has better info, I'd be interested in hearing about it. As to the technical merits of hybrids, I think it's pretty safe to say that their strong point is safety. They really can't blow up, even if they rupture a casing, and they can be shut down or throttled. They should even be restartable. Hybrids should also be cheaper than solids, and perform slightly better. The rubber-like fuel cores they employ are cheaper to make than solid rocket fuel cores, and don't require expensive safety precautions for handling. Liquid oxygen is very cheap, and provides substantially more energy per pound than the oxidizers encorporated into solid rocket fuels. Unfortunately, hybrids still requires the same heavy, high pressure casings that solid rockets require, and their performance alone is not sufficiently better than solids to send anyone like NASA scrambling off to develop them. It's also possible that there are technical problems with uneven fuel burning that I didn't hear about, but that would make them unusable for something as large as a Shuttle SRB. Again, if anyone out there in net land has more info, by all means, don't keep it to yourself. - Roger Arnold
kempf@hplabsc.UUCP (Jim Kempf) (10/15/86)
There is a company in Menlo Park, CA called American Rocket Co. which is headed by George Koopman which is developing a hybrid solid fuel/ liquid oxydizer rocket. They have already tested a basic engine module at Edwards Air Force Base, and plan on strapping together 19 of them for a rocket capable of lifting 3,000-4,000 lb. into a 135 mile orbit. Their projected launch date is Jan. 1988. The Airforce and GE's Space Division have expressed interest, and GE has signed a $5 million letter of agreement with Koopman to launch their Space Recovery Vehicle on Koopman's rocket. Koopman is currently trying to raise $35 million. He claims he can launch something for $5-$8 million per launch. Jim Kempf hplabs!kempf <<<<***usual disclaimer***>>>>
dsmith@hplabsc.UUCP (David Smith) (10/15/86)
In article <755@hplabsc.UUCP>, kempf@hplabsc.UUCP (Jim Kempf) writes: > There is a company in Menlo Park, CA called American Rocket Co. which > is headed by George Koopman which is developing a hybrid solid fuel/ > liquid oxydizer rocket.... The San Jose Mercury News printed an article on this on Monday, Oct. 13, which is where I presume Jim got his information. Jim did a good job of distilling the article into one paragraph, but the whole article is worth reading. David Smith