http://www.hybrids.com/falcon.htm
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Lloyd Droppers <ldroppers@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
My google-fu was not strong but it turned up this appalling backronym
"Force Application and Launch from the CONtinental United States" as an
alternative to Anthony's acronym, but I think they are the same program. It
looks like this is a program that has evolved a fair bit over its life. The
fact that names kestrel and falcon were used by spaceX, and that spaceX was
part of the program doesn't not make the search any easier.
As far as I can test the FALCON program was broken into two bits, the
hypersonic reentry vehicle called the CAV or HTV, and the small launch
vehicle (SLV) also named the Kestrel. It looks like the Kestrel SLV phase I
was originally awarded to 9 organizations in 2003,
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-03zzi.html.
But this was a DARPA award for ~$500k in the 2000's and those usually end
with a paper study and sometimes labscale experiments and those are usually
only given to DARPA and almost never published for a general audience with
any technical detail at all. Four teams were given much larger phase II
~$10M; Lockheed Martin with a hybrid rocket, Microcosm with pressure fed
biprop, SpaceX with their Falcon 1, and Airlaunch with their vapor pressure
fed engines. (
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/Developments_Concepts_Feb_2008.pdf
)
Without knowing which of the nine Anthony worked on we can't really say
anything more. But given the four phase II vehicle architectures I think a
electric pump would have be on one of the five unselected options, unless
LockMart used it to pump the LOX, and as such I would be surprised if any
details exist for the general public on the variant that Anthony worked on.
Lloyd
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Anthony Cesaroni <acesaroni@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
It was a USAF/DARPA TTO program in the mid-2000s. Force Applied
Continental US got abbreviated to Falcon somehow. A mobile, Atlas size
vehicle. The guided, hypersonic re-entry vehicle was code named CAV for
common aero vehicle. Launch on demand or optionally the “Walker
Constellation” and de-orbit on demand. It was accused of breaking space
based weapons treaties but seeing it was non-nuclear, it found a hole in
the language.
Спасибо товарищ!
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
*From:* Andrew Burns [mailto:burns.andrew@xxxxxxxxx]
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 21, 2015 2:05 PM
*To:* SRQ JOE <acesaroni@xxxxxxxxxxx>
*Subject:* Re: [AR] Re: Turbopump
Anthony,
Anymore detail on whatever the Kestrel FALCON design is? Haven't heard of
it and couldn't find any info about it online.
Cheers
Andrew
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Anthony Cesaroni <acesaroni@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
In-runners are a bit trickier to cool when you have to. An Exair cold
gun(S) or a lot of air can work or the gas bleed off a cryo N2 tank. On the
Kestrel FALCON design, we had the pumps and motors integrated inside the
LOX tank and it was powered by a short life, high output, fuel cell. The
whole affair only had to run for 120 seconds and with all the cooling
available, it made for some silly power densities.
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
-----Original Message-----
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Monroe L. King Jr.
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 10:45 AM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AR] Re: Turbopump
This is close to the required power and RPM it might support 1 pump.
I don't know how well the motors will stand up running at 30 HP at full
RPM.
It should be sufficient for testing.
I was unable to find a tool post grinder I was happy with for less than
$1000 so I have ordered a spindle motor of sufficient HP to use with 4
bearings supporting it's spindle and a VFD as it operates at 400hz.
So I intend to build a grinder from that to build shafts for the
turbopump.
I don't think any kind of coupling between power and pump will be
sufficient and it will aid balancing being one piece impeller and shaft.
One step closer and I can start making the pump.
Still need a good CAD draftsman. The back side of the pump impeller needs
work.
Russell I still like the piston arrangement you where talking about and
I'm trying to devise a way to make that arrangement adjustable manually and
measure the pressure on the piston during operation to get a better feel
for whats really going on, on the back side.
I think the key to a successful pump lays in the back side more than the
well known front.
If we can get something drawn up I hope you will give it a shot to make
an impeller for the Lloyd design as I still do not yet have 5 axis
capabilities and your Morly has room for the shaft threw your chuck I
believe.
I'd like to see a drawing of the volute and housing made.
Progress!
-------- Original Message --------monroe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:monroe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
Subject: [AR] Re: Turbopump
From: "Russell Blink" <russblink@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, October 19, 2015 5:58 pm
To: <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
If you need a bit more power try the 3080 model:
http://www.lehner-motoren.com/doc/man_30_series_en_11_2013.pdf
30kw and 50K rpm, around 40HP
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robert Steinke
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 11:43 AM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AR] Re: Turbopump
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Monroe L. King Jr. <
23,000 Watts = 30.66 horsepower. It weighs 3 kg and costs $600. I doubt
So what's the pumps specs? It will take nearly 30 hp to drive just one
of the pumps to full capacity I'm working on so we can run some test
on electric but to go all the way will take a turbine.
Take a look at this page:
http://finedesignrc.com/motorstp.asp
Scroll all of the way to the bottom. The TP100 motor is rated at
any amateur effort will beat that with a turbine.
<mailto:tjgraz11@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Anthony Graziani <tjgraz11@xxxxxxxxx
That's about 1000psi at 1kg/s flowrate for kerosene. Chamber pressure at
Well, assuming about 60% pump efficiency I'll need about 15hp per pump.
about 700 psi should net at least 100N of thrust.
with this size pump is too low. At 700 psi chamber pressure even an
I think Anthony's estimate for the engine thrust that can be produced
amateur built biprop engine should get above 200 s Isp. That means a flow
rate of 1 kg/s would produce a thrust of 200 kgf or ~2000 N. If he is just
pumping fuel and pressure feeding oxidizer then the total flow rate and
thrust will be even higher.
