4 décembre 2020 | International, Aérospatial

This company wants to launch satellites into space via drone

WASHINGTON — Could drones hold the answer to putting satellites on orbit faster?

Space logistics company Aevum is betting on it with its new Ravn X drone, which it built in the hopes of launching rockets into orbit every three hours.

“Aevum is completely reimagining access to space,” said Jay Skylus, Aevum's founder and chief executive, said in a statement unveiling the new launch solution Dec. 3. “U.S. leadership has identified the critical need for extremely fast access to low Earth orbit. We're faster than anybody.

“Through our autonomous technologies, Aevum will shorten the lead time of launches from years to months, and when our customers demand it, minutes,” he added.

Founded in 2016, the company has been developing its product in stealth mode for years. On Dec. 3, they officially unveiled the new Ravn X autonomous launch solution ― an 80-foot long drone designed to launch small payloads into low Earth orbit.

The company has yet to conduct its first test flight but is working toward airworthiness certification. Leaders hope to launch a payload for the military before the end of 2021.

“We have a small launch vehicle that's more or less designed from scratch to be reusable and for responsive space access,” Skylus told C4ISRNET in an interview. “We do this by operating this sort of three stage launch vehicle stack. The first stage is an unmanned aircraft that is completely autonomous. The second and third stages are rocket systems.”

Following take off, the drone rises to between 30,000 and 60,000 feet, where the rocket separates and ignites, launching the payload into orbit. Ravn X can take off and land horizontally on any airstrip at least one mile long.

“The entire system is designed for a turnaround time and response time of about 180 minutes,” Skylus explained.

The idea of launching satellites into space from the air isn't a new concept. For example, Northrop Grumman's Pegasus rocket ― designed to be launched into orbit from a carrier aircraft ― has been used for Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Air Force and NASA missions since the 1990s, with the most recent mission taking place in October 2019. A more recent entrant into the air-launch-to-orbit arena is Virgin Orbit's LauncherOne rocket. The company's first test flight, which failed to reach orbit, was conducted in May 2020.

Aevum thinks of itself as taking the concept one step further by adding autonomy to the launch process.

“This entire process is more or less fully autonomous, and this allows us to basically reduce the cost of labor that's required by about 90 percent,” said Skylus.

Aevum's approach also gets at one of the most frustrating issues with launch: weather.

In 2018, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency announced the DARPA Launch Challenge, where small launch companies were asked to show that they could put a payload into space within just 30 days. While about 50 companies applied, by 2019 their were only three companies remaining in the competition. By 2020, there was just one: Astra Space. The company came close to achieving its goal, ultimately failing after inclement weather forced them to scrub multiple launch attempts.

Ravn X is largely impervious to those issues.

“Because of the architecture, we're really not dependent on weather and those types of things. We expect to be available more than 96 percent of the year,” said Skylus.

The company is already drawing attention from the Department of Defense. Ravn X's first mission will be the ASLON-45 mission for the U.S. Space Force, a $5 million contract. With that mission, the focus is on showing how the company can get a payload into orbit in 24 hours or less, said Skylus. That launch is expected to be complete before the end of 2021.

In addition, the company has received a Phase II Small Business Innovation Research award, a classified contract, and is one of eight company's to receive a $986 million indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract for Orbital Services Program-4.

“I'm excited to see the bold innovation and responsiveness in development today by our small launch industry partners to support emerging war fighter needs” said Lt. Col. Ryan Rose, Chief of the Space and Missile Systems Center's Small Launch and Targets Division, in a statement coordinated with Aevum's announcement. “The U.S. Space Force is proactively partnering with industry to support U.S. space superiority objectives. Having a robust U.S. industry providing responsive launch capability is key to ensuring the U.S. Space Force can respond to future threats.”

The Pentagon has been pushing industry for responsive launch solutions, ensuring that they can place payloads into orbit with little notice. Aevum's focus on software and automation gives them an edge in meeting those elusive responsive launch requirements, Skylus said.

“The responsive space launch type of problem has been a problem for several decades now, and the government has been seeking a solution to this. While others, our peers, are trying to tackle this from a technology/engineering perspective, Aevum is really tackling the problem from a system level perspective,” said Skylus.

That's meant taking proven hardware solutions and applying autonomous software solutions to the ground processes and mission assurance elements.

“If you look at our financials and things like that, we really do look more like a software company as opposed to a launch company,” said Skylus. “Which is great, because that means we're profitable right out of the gate.”

For Aevum, the focus is on being that dependable, responsive launch service, and that may come at a premium for prospective customers, including the Pentagon.

“We're not looking to be the lowest cost provider. That was never something that we claimed to be,” said Skylus. “Our focus has been: How do we make sure that we can go when our customers need to go?

“Our niche market is going to be composed of customers like the Department of Defense who can't afford to wait a week to gather intel ... Or a customer like a commercial constellation customer who if they're down for over a week, they're going to lose more in revenue than they would be willing to pay for a launch,” he continued. “Those are the customers that we're really targeting.”


Sur le même sujet

  • Shipbuilding suppliers need more than market forces to stay afloat

    21 mai 2020 | International, Naval

    Shipbuilding suppliers need more than market forces to stay afloat

    By: Bryan Clark and Timothy A. Walton The U.S. Navy's award this month of the contract for its new class of frigates starts the very necessary process of rebalancing the U.S. surface fleet, but the competition also highlighted the U.S. shipbuilding-industrial base's increasing fragility. If they lost, two of the four shipyards bidding on the frigate were at risk of either going out of business or joining the underemployed ranks of U.S. commercial shipbuilders. Due to specialization, only one or two yards construct each class of Navy combat ship with workforces, equipment, and infrastructure that would be expensive and difficult to adapt. A decision on any single ship class, as with the frigate, can shut down a shipyard and send its workers to the unemployment line. Specialization is also a problem when orders increase. The Navy's two submarine shipyards, General Dynamics Electric Boat and Huntington Ingalls Industries' Newport News division, shrank the time needed to build subs by 20 percent during the past decade while increasing production to two per year. The rising sophistication of Virginia-class submarines has now reversed this trend, however, and submarine builders' challenges are only increasing. They recently started a new contract to build up to 10 of the larger Block V Virginia submarines and are in negotiation with the Navy on a block-buy contract for the first two Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines. Supplier challenges abound U.S. shipbuilders may be fragile, but their suppliers are on life support. After decades of being whipsawed by changes to shipbuilding plans and budget uncertainty, a shrinking number of suppliers are able and willing to stay in business. The Navy's recent initiatives to improve supplier production capacity and resilience don't go far enough to address its rising dependence on sole-source suppliers, which now provide more than 75 percent of submarine parts. For example, when problems with Columbia missile tubes led the Navy to seek new suppliers, it replaced the existing, sole source — BWXT — with another — General Dynamics — that will assemble tubes at the same facilities that are constructing parts for the Virginia and Columbia submarines. Last year, the Trump administration used the Defense Production Act to establish new suppliers for military missile fuel. The Navy should build on this effort to identify sole-source items for which an additional supplier is appropriate. In selecting additional suppliers, the Navy should prioritize attributes other than cost. Sole-source items by definition are important enough to justify seeking out or creating a single supplier rather than adapting the ship's design to use an existing item. Therefore, the Navy should emphasize the provider's track record in conducting similar or other challenging engineering; its ability to adjust to what will likely be variable demand and changing specifications; and the likelihood of quality production that avoids rework. Planning for resiliency The Department of Defense could help address the shipbuilding-industrial base's fragility with its current study of the number and mix of ships needed in the future fleet. Although the primary goal of this analysis should be determining the most effective fleet possible within likely budget constraints, it must also ensure the industrial base can build and sustain the future Navy. Industrial base considerations are not new to Navy force structure planning. During the last decade, the Navy or Congress added amphibious ships, submarines, destroyers and auxiliary vessels to maintain hot production lines or keep a shipyard afloat until the next order. Each of the Navy's new combatant ships are expected to cost more than $1 billion to build, constraining the Navy's ability to spread ship construction to other qualified shipyards to fill production gaps or extend classes to keep a shipyard in operation. The Navy could better support shipbuilders by rebalancing its fleet architecture to increase the number of smaller vessels such as corvettes or tank landing ships, and reduce the number of larger destroyers and amphibious warships. Smaller, less-expensive ships could be built in larger numbers per year, providing more flexibility in shipbuilding plans to stabilize the workload for shipbuilders and providing more scalability to align shipbuilding expenditures with changing budgets. Smaller ships could also be built at a wider range of shipyards, including those that only build commercial vessels and noncombatant government ships like Coast Guard cutters and oceanographic research vessels. These “dual-use” shipbuilders suffer today from a lack of coordination between commercial and government shipbuilding, which creates a feast-or-famine cycle of orders. The Navy and nation depend on a healthy shipbuilding-industrial base. To foster the industrial base in the face of natural and man-made challenges, the Navy should change its fleet design and shipbuilding plans, while investing to establish and qualify new suppliers. Without deliberate action, the U.S. shipbuilding industry will become increasingly fragile, limiting the Navy's ability to build the ships it needs and respond when today's competitions turn to conflict. Bryan Clark is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, where Timothy A. Walton is a fellow. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/05/20/shipbuilding-suppliers-need-more-than-market-forces-to-stay-afloat/

  • Army Wants Manned-Aircraft Airworthiness Levels From Future UAS

    11 juin 2018 | International, Aérospatial, Terrestre

    Army Wants Manned-Aircraft Airworthiness Levels From Future UAS

    Graham Warwick | Aviation Week & Space Technology Its appetite Fueled by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. Army is a big user of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), from thousands of hand-launched RQ-11 Ravens to hundreds of tactical RQ-7 Shadows and medium-altitude MQ-1C Gray Eagles. And the service has made progress in how it uses UAS, including manned-unmanned teaming between Shadows and AH-64 Apache helicopters in the reconnaissance role. But as it looks to the future, the Army is less than happy with some aspects of its UAS ... http://aviationweek.com/defense/army-wants-manned-aircraft-airworthiness-levels-future-uas

  • Raytheon awarded $25.4M for Tomahawk Weapons Systems Military Code, AGR5 kit

    20 septembre 2019 | International, Aérospatial

    Raytheon awarded $25.4M for Tomahawk Weapons Systems Military Code, AGR5 kit

    BySommer Brokaw Sept. 19 (UPI) -- Raytheon Missile Systems has been awarded a $25.4 million contract by the Navy for the Tomahawk Weapons System Military Code review and AGR5 kit. The contract, announced Wednesday by the Department of Defense, is for the company to conduct critical design review of the Tomahawk Weapons System Military Code's software and hardware. The contract also covers development work on an AGR5 kit, an anti-jam tool to be used for the global positioning system. The design review will include "studies, analysis, design, development, integration and test of hardware and software solutions," the Pentagon said in a press release. The contract also includes Navy funds for "assembly, integration, test and documentation of an AGR5 kit," the notice said. Raytheon will perform more than half the work in El Segundo, Calif., and the rest in Tucson, Ariz., with work expected to be completed by March 2021. https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2019/09/19/Raytheon-awarded-254M-for-Tomahawk-Weapons-Systems-Military-Code-AGR5-kit/1891568909920/

Toutes les nouvelles