The Mojave Launch Lab
A community of alternative rocketeers who may one day dominate the space biz.
- By Stephen Joiner
- Photographs by Chad Slattery
- Air & Space magazine, May 2011
It lacks the glamour of Canaveral, but for Cal State students, an engine test stand in the desert beats the classroom.
Chad Slattery
(Page 3 of 5)
Applause rises from bunkers. “We’re good,” Garvey says, emerging from the blockhouse.
At Masten Space Systems, I’m up close with suborbital prototype Xombie, star of YouTube videos and recipient of the 2009 $1 million NASA/Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander X-prize.
Xombie is even hotter in person: A reusable vertical-takeoff/vertical-landing vehicle, about the height and girth of an industrial water heater, with four landing struts and a single liquid oxygen/isopropyl alcohol engine. Xombie is the test horse for big sister Xaero, scheduled to offer commercial lifts into a high-quality microgravity environment (like that on an orbiting space shuttle, as opposed to high-altitude balloons or sounding rockets) sometime this year.
Dave Masten designed networks for IT icons like Cisco Systems and Ameritech. But before that, “I was a kid shooting off Estes model rockets,” he says. He advanced to high-powered rocketry—“Estes for adults with adult budgets”—then went above and beyond amateur status. At his first startup, in Santa Clara, certain “loud noises” drew complaints from neighbors. “In 2006, the golden handcuffs were freed from my previous ventures in Silicon Valley and I was able to move the company,” he says. “I found this place, where they actually like the idea of rocket tests. It was easy to fit into Mojave.”
Masten aims to market a low-cost microgravity environment for educational and scientific payloads. Xaero and Xogdor (still in development) promise access above 100,000 feet, without the drawbacks such as survivable ejection from expendable sounding rockets and rough parachute landings. On reusable vehicles like Xombie, the payload stays with the rocket, which soft-lands back on the pad it took off from. “We’ve tried to make them as autonomous as possible,” Masten says. “Computers are much better pilots than humans are.” Guided by GPS and inertial measurement units, vehicles reach Mach 2 before engine shutdown, then coast to their suborbital apogee, or high point. During freefall reentry, engine relight and deceleration occur a dramatic few hundred feet above the launch/landing pad. Xombie is the world’s first vertical-takeoff/vertical-landing vehicle to relight an engine in flight.
Payloads bask in high-quality microgravity up to four minutes. Xaero will offer less gravity than what zero-G aircraft provide, while the higher-reaching Xogdor should deliver microgravity as low as that experienced on the International Space Station.
With a small space startup’s focus on the bottom line, Masten keeps components as third-party as possible. Xombie’s onboard computer is an industrial module common in automotive applications. But I’m unprepared for the off-the-shelf WiFi base station—pretty much what I’ve got at home—that downlinks telemetry from the rocket. During his IT days, Masten engineered a project that beamed WiFi across San Francisco Bay. “You’ll replace that with something more permanent for suborbital flights?” I ask. Masten shakes his head and grins: “We’re gonna try to make it work all the way up. I am not kidding.”
When Apollo astronauts lifted off the moon, they left behind a lot of things besides footprints. Toxic hydrazine fuel contamination was one. Not a problem—nobody was returning soon. But for repeat visits to a lunar or Mars base, Greg Mungas says, “Having a non-toxic propellant will be a big deal.”
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »





Comments (6)
Suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS.
Posted by gaetano marano on March 18,2011 | 08:26 AM
I had trouble getting past the opening of Stephen Joiner’s article “The Mojave Launch Lab”.
I’m surprised and disappointed that a magazine of A&S’s stature that has a long record of promoting the true grit of America’s aeronautical and aerospace entrepreneurs and their achievements would find amusement, even apparent enjoyment, in bashing the Roton.
What happened to the celebrations and cheers of what my current employer calls “confidence in nonsense”? Burt Rutan has always maintained that if you’re going to realize breakthroughs in the engineering arena you have to position yourself, in that precarious void, where the fearful and faint of heart have to be dragged over the finish line.
I don’t recall similar, deriding comments being written about Lockheed Martin’s, $1.3B, X-33 effort that produced some eye-watering launch facilities out by Edwards Air Force Base and a busted composite LOX tank. The Roton, though, was designed, built and flown for less than $8M. The remainder of the company’s $30M budget went into the propulsion side of the house which never saw the light of day. If Rotary Rocket was a “failure” it was not because of the Roton.
Museums across this great country are filled with hardware that stretched the thinking of their time. They are not there because they were financially successful or had large production runs and certainly not to be ridiculed. They are there to stimulate fresh and unfettered ideas and to hopefully reach out to young minds and say there’s still a lot to be tried.
We don’t know all that’s under the sun.
Posted by Brian Binnie on March 20,2011 | 12:59 PM
XCOR's Jeff Greason is right. The civilian astronauts flying on NewSpace rockets will open the space frontier.
If I were not an XCOR investor, I'd buy a ticket. Since I am an investor,I don't need to: the larger investors fly as flight test engineers.
Based on my first rocket flight in 2008, I am very much looking forward to a flight in the right seat of the Lynx spacecraft in 2012.
Posted by Lee Valentine on March 20,2011 | 09:04 PM
Really enjoyed this story, except for the digs at Rotary Rocket company.
For deeper insight, see this interview with Rotary co-founder Gary Hudson
The Roton Rocket (orphansofapollo.com)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxh4ZhpIRh0
Of historical interest: 1998 promotional video for Rotary Rocket -
Rotary Rocket Company: Revolution To Orbit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=So3d_JfGrMQ
As it says on the commemorative plaque at the foot of the Roton in Mojave's Legacy Park, "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat."
Theodore Roosevelt
26th president of US (1858 - 1919)
Posted by Robin Snelson on March 21,2011 | 11:19 PM
The smarmy comments regarding the Roton were quite surprising in an otherwise fine article. Aerospace history is littered with vehicles which never made it into production, but yet accomplished significant things. Relatively little $ was spent on the Roton landing system test vehicle. 3 times more was spent on the failed development of the spinning engine to have been on the base. Ask Mr. Greason just who was in charge of THAT..
Posted by Ken Doyle on March 22,2011 | 02:00 AM
gaetano marano wrote:
"Suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS."
Stairs and climbing out of a bathtub are dangerous and people die every year doing it.
Automoblies kill 50,000 people a year in the US alone.
EVERYTHING is dangerous; that's life.
Posted by Vladislaw on May 4,2011 | 01:32 PM