Pretty sure the issue with the FTS system has already been remedied...There's also uncertainty over the status of the Federal Aviation Administration's mishap investigation of the Starship launch in April, which ended in the upper atmosphere after the rocket tumbled out of control. The vehicle took longer than expected to disintegrate after activating its range safety self-destruct system.
The issue is that you have to assure the FAA about that. That may take some time (or not) but SpaceX doesn't have control of that.Pretty sure the issue with the FTS system has already been remedied...
Blue Origin targeting 4 pairs of BE-4 engines per year and ULA aiming for 25 launches per year. Smart re-use has a lot of work to do!
otherwise ULA will indeed have a bit of challenge.ULA and its subcontractors are also expanding factory space at locations around the country to produce more Vulcan engines
So that "Vulcan engines" bit was a bit confusing for me ... ULA doesn't build the BE-4, so I first assumed this would be for more upper stage engines. But "subcontractors" could technically mean BO. Doesn't BO already have BE-4 production and testing facilities? Shouldn't the cost of that already be factored into engine price?I interpreted the article as Blue Origin expanding production capacity:
otherwise ULA will indeed have a bit of challenge.
Fortunately ULA needs the engines for launching Kuiper. Maybe a previous Amazon CEO can intervene with the Blue Origin owner to make it happen
I am not a rocket scientist, but for this kind of rocket, it’s all about the mass of the molecules. The fuel isn’t getting oxidized, just heated and accelerated. So you want the lightest molecule possible to maximize the exhaust velocity, hence Hydrogen. Even using helium would result in a significant performance penalty.Regarding the Thermal Nuclear Engine: we all know that Hydrogen is the ideal propellant, but we also know that hydrogen has a whole list of challenges that offset the benefits of an “ideal” fuel.
Why would Methane not be a reasonable alternative?
edit: completing thought. and spelling.
It is possible SpaceX may have tested the new FTS on B6 after the April test flight. But there was speculation that they were just testing the old one to see why it didn't succeed. I haven't seen any confirmation that it was a test of the new FTS, and no word on whether the FAA has given it the thumbs up for certification.Pretty sure the issue with the FTS system has already been remedied...
I get the Rocket Science is hard. If you are the first (aka SpaceX and Falcon) then the design, test, and implementation times can take a while as new systems are created, tested, and tossed or kept.
But they did it.
SpaceeX figured out reuse and has been doing it since 2018 and yet not one other company (or investment group) thought, hey, that seems to work...copy it.
I have to guess that the hardest part of what makes F9 reusable is the software, because the rest seems to be, now, pretty straight forward engineering. Legs and fins, check, engine relights, check, big tube that holds fuel, check so it has to be making it all work so it does not crash and burn that seems to be the hard part now.
As China is very good at copying, I'd put good money that they will be next on the reuse band wagon and not the EU.
What surprised me is SX's SS/SH concept, because at the moment, they are coming close to a Rube Goldberg approach to reusable compared to their very competent, KISS Falcon series. "Catching" a booster? A second stage with stubby legs for landing? Even this hot staging which ups risk with some slight mass savings.
I'm just a soon to retire Programmer and they got pretty smart people at SX so "they know better", but they also got a CEO that is losing it and are taking chances (and pushing federal agencies) that seem to slow down, not push forward testing. I can't wait to see a static fire test that goes more then a few seconds; to have them test the pad as well as the booster.
Thanks for the info.It is possible SpaceX may have tested the new FTS on B6 after the April test flight. But there was speculation that they were just testing the old one to see why it didn't succeed. I haven't seen any confirmation that it was a test of the new FTS, and no word on whether the FAA has given it the thumbs up for certification.
Yes, the nuclear reactor can't create anything like the stagnation temperature of a chemical rocket engine (it's closer to half), so in order to get the higher exhaust velocity it needs to be a much lighter molecule. Hydrogen is the only one for which the much greater Isp might possibly be said to trump all the drawbacks of NTR, and even that is very debatable.I am not a rocket scientist, but for this kind of rocket, it’s all about the mass of the molecules. The fuel isn’t getting oxidized, just heated and accelerated. So you want the lightest molecule possible to maximize the exhaust velocity, hence Hydrogen. Even using helium would result in a significant performance penalty.
I agree. But, at the stated operating temperature of 2700K, I believe that the methane molecule will break down into elemental hydrogen and carbon. If that is true, then you still have the benefit of hydrogen at a higher storage densityI am not a rocket scientist, but for this kind of rocket, it’s all about the mass of the molecules. The fuel isn’t getting oxidized, just heated and accelerated. So you want the lightest molecule possible to maximize the exhaust velocity, hence Hydrogen. Even using helium would result in a significant performance penalty.
I get the Rocket Science is hard. If you are the first (aka SpaceX and Falcon) then the design, test, and implementation times can take a while as new systems are created, tested, and tossed or kept.
But they did it.
SpaceeX figured out reuse and has been doing it since 2018 and yet not one other company (or investment group) thought, hey, that seems to work...copy it.
I have to guess that the hardest part of what makes F9 reusable is the software, because the rest seems to be, now, pretty straight forward engineering. Legs and fins, check, engine relights, check, big tube that holds fuel, check so it has to be making it all work so it does not crash and burn that seems to be the hard part now.
As China is very good at copying, I'd put good money that they will be next on the reuse band wagon and not the EU.
What surprised me is SX's SS/SH concept, because at the moment, they are coming close to a Rube Goldberg approach to reusable compared to their very competent, KISS Falcon series. "Catching" a booster? A second stage with stubby legs for landing? Even this hot staging which ups risk with some slight mass savings.
I'm just a soon to retire Programmer and they got pretty smart people at SX so "they know better", but they also got a CEO that is losing it and are taking chances (and pushing federal agencies) that seem to slow down, not push forward testing. I can't wait to see a static fire test that goes more then a few seconds; to have them test the pad as well as the booster.
BO developed BE-4 to be reusable, so a couple boosters worth (7) of engines per year would probably meet their needs. On top of that ULA probably only envisioned launching 6-8 times per year, at 2 engines per launch. So maybe a 30 engine annual run rate. Now with Kuiper maybe 25 ULA launches per year might happen, and that would more than double the engines they need. So yeah it makes sense they'd need to invest in more factory space and that the customer would pay for it (directly or indirectly). The original engine price would have been in a contract with a specified annual run rate I would imagine, so more engines more money.So that "Vulcan engines" bit was a bit confusing for me ... ULA doesn't build the BE-4, so I first assumed this would be for more upper stage engines. But "subcontractors" could technically mean BO. Doesn't BO already have BE-4 production and testing facilities? Shouldn't the cost of that already be factored into engine price?
The Amazon -> ULA -> Blue Origin relationship has always seemed really weird to me.
Carbon as in soot, which is a solid phase particle not a gas. The situation is like a solid rocket booster, in that metal particles provide most of the thermal energy, but the binder is needed not only to hold the grain together but to generate the hot gas that creates most of the thrust. 3/4 of your reaction mass being soot particles would not be good for the thrust if you actually did achieve pyrolysis. Also probably wouldn't be terribly great for the cleanliness of the cooling channels.I agree. But, at the stated operating temperature of 2700K, I believe that the methane molecule will break down into elemental hydrogen and carbon. If that is true, then you still have the benefit of hydrogen at a higher storage density
All of these issues and more were addressed and discussed at some length In Eric's story on Wednesday:I agree. But, at the stated operating temperature of 2700K, I believe that the methane molecule will break down into elemental hydrogen and carbon. If that is true, then you still have the benefit of hydrogen at a higher storage density
I get the Rocket Science is hard. If you are the first (aka SpaceX and Falcon) then the design, test, and implementation times can take a while as new systems are created, tested, and tossed or kept.
But they did it.
SpaceeX figured out reuse and has been doing it since 2018 and yet not one other company (or investment group) thought, hey, that seems to work...copy it.
I have to guess that the hardest part of what makes F9 reusable is the software, because the rest seems to be, now, pretty straight forward engineering. Legs and fins, check, engine relights, check, big tube that holds fuel, check so it has to be making it all work so it does not crash and burn that seems to be the hard part now.
As China is very good at copying, I'd put good money that they will be next on the reuse band wagon and not the EU.
What surprised me is SX's SS/SH concept, because at the moment, they are coming close to a Rube Goldberg approach to reusable compared to their very competent, KISS Falcon series. "Catching" a booster? A second stage with stubby legs for landing? Even this hot staging which ups risk with some slight mass savings.
Indeed. The issue with the FTS was the simplest and easiest to fix possible - insufficient boom stuff at the end of the activation chain. There was an apparent test of an enhanced FTS on a SS test tank at SpaceX's Massey site about a month ago. The results were quite satisfactory from the boom perspective.Pretty sure the issue with the FTS system has already been remedied...
They aren’t targeting 4 pairs a year. Their current production is 4 engines a year. They are definitely targeting way more than that but scaling up takes time.Blue Origin targeting 4 pairs of BE-4 engines per year and ULA aiming for 25 launches per year. Smart re-use has a lot of work to do!
I agree. But, at the stated operating temperature of 2700K, I believe that the methane molecule will break down into elemental hydrogen and carbon. If that is true, then you still have the benefit of hydrogen at a higher storage density
ULA and its subcontractors are also expanding factory space at locations around the country to produce more Vulcan engines
Makes sense. BO originally claimed the Huntsville site would build "dozens" of engines per year. I suppose at the scale you describe, (50ish engines per year for ULA and 14ish for BO) they might need more real estate.BO developed BE-4 to be reusable, so a couple boosters worth (7) of engines per year would probably meet their needs. On top of that ULA probably only envisioned launching 6-8 times per year, at 2 engines per launch. So maybe a 30 engine annual run rate. Now with Kuiper maybe 25 ULA launches per year might happen, and that would more than double the engines they need. So yeah it makes sense they'd need to invest in more factory space and that the customer would pay for it (directly or indirectly). The original engine price would have been in a contract with a specified annual run rate I would imagine, so more engines more money.
That does make sense.I interpreted that to mean the Centaur V's engines (2 RL10 engines built by Aerojet Rocketdyne).
I interpreted that to mean the Centaur V's engines (2 RL10 engines built by Aerojet Rocketdyne).
Given the gigantic disconnect between BO's total engine factory space and current BE-4 production rate it is hard not to come to that conclusion. Historically RL10s were produced sparsely in small lots and with a lot of touch labor. With a long term customer commitment to a much higher purchase rate it seems infrastructure expansion and modernization would be in order.I interpreted that to mean the Centaur V's engines (2 RL10 engines built by Aerojet Rocketdyne).
I think the hardest part of reuse was having confidence that demand would increase enough to pay back investment.I get the Rocket Science is hard. If you are the first (aka SpaceX and Falcon) then the design, test, and implementation times can take a while as new systems are created, tested, and tossed or kept.
But they did it.
SpaceeX figured out reuse and has been doing it since 2018 and yet not one other company (or investment group) thought, hey, that seems to work...copy it.
I have to guess that the hardest part of what makes F9 reusable is the software, because the rest seems to be, now, pretty straight forward engineering. Legs and fins, check, engine relights, check, big tube that holds fuel, check so it has to be making it all work so it does not crash and burn that seems to be the hard part now.
As China is very good at copying, I'd put good money that they will be next on the reuse band wagon and not the EU.
What surprised me is SX's SS/SH concept, because at the moment, they are coming close to a Rube Goldberg approach to reusable compared to their very competent, KISS Falcon series. "Catching" a booster? A second stage with stubby legs for landing? Even this hot staging which ups risk with some slight mass savings.
I'm just a soon to retire Programmer and they got pretty smart people at SX so "they know better", but they also got a CEO that is losing it and are taking chances (and pushing federal agencies) that seem to slow down, not push forward testing. I can't wait to see a static fire test that goes more then a few seconds; to have them test the pad as well as the booster.
An FAA spokesperson declined to speculate when the agency’s investigation might be completed, saying that “public safety and actions yet to be taken by SpaceX will dictate the timeline.”
“The FAA will not allow a return to flight operations until it determines that any system, process, or procedure related to the mishap does not affect public safety or any other aspect of the operator’s license,” the spokesperson said. “The mishap investigation is ongoing.”
As most things space, this has long been worked out; Arthur C. Clarke even covers it in his exposition at the start of 2010: Odyssey Two:Even with it breaking down, you're losing impulse because the (relatively) heavy carbon atom has to be accelerated as well. Methane ends up with around 75-80% of the Isp of hydrogen molecules and 35-40% of the Isp of monatomic hydrogen (if we can ever figure out a way to store that).
The carbon also tends to form soot deposits and clog things up, so if a lower-impulse propellant is used, ammonia is probably more useful because nitrogen is less problematic than carbon.
(emphasis mine)By the time they had left the chamber, Floyd had learned more about the Sakharov Drive than he really wished to know, or expected to remember. He was well acquainted with its basic principles - the use of a pulsed thermonuclear reaction to heat and expel virtually any propellent material. The best results were obtained with pure hydrogen as a working fluid, but that was excessively bulky and difficult to store over long periods of time. Methane and ammonia were acceptable alternatives; even water could be used, though with considerably poorer efficiency.
Leonov would compromise; the enormous liquid hydrogen tanks that provided the initial impetus would be discarded when the ship had attained the necessary speed to carry it to Jupiter. At the destination, ammonia would be used for the braking and rendezvous manoeuvres, and the eventual return to Earth.
This is why the nuclear salt water rocket is such a fun concept. I have no idea if it's practical, I'm not nuclear physicist - but the idea seems attractively simple at the high level and avoids the drawbacks of the thermal rocket.Yes, the nuclear reactor can't create anything like the stagnation temperature of a chemical rocket engine (it's closer to half), so in order to get the higher exhaust velocity it needs to be a much lighter molecule. Hydrogen is the only one for which the much greater Isp might possibly be said to trump all the drawbacks of NTR, and even that is very debatable.
Their New Shepard landing and reuse gives them some experience to work with, which should help shorten their path to reuse. But given the teething problems of BE-4 engines so far, it may be a while before they iron out enough problems to enter into full production. And yes, at that point they have a whole new set of challenges.Something to consider is that the first several New Glenn's will almost certainly either not attempt reuse, or fail in their attempts. I think it took SpaceX some 20 attempts? If it takes BO a similar number, then they will need to produce some 140 engines that will be expended, on top of the 50 annual for Vulcan launches.
I obviously don't know their production rate (of actually flight ready engines), but it seems unlikely from all evidence that they are prepared to meet the demands placed on them.
SpaceeX figured out reuse and has been doing it since 2018 and yet not one other company (or investment group) thought, hey, that seems to work...copy it.
I'm not getting that tone from the author.Author is trying to have his cake and eat it too with the part about Maia space. Knee jerk ciritcizing anyone without a spaceX in the name?
They started with no more than a name. Of course they need to find people, hire them, do basic rocket designs, ect.
Kinda silly to portray them as slow when they didnt even exist a year ago.
SpaceX had many years of engineering studies before they bent any metal for starship. And they already had a huge crew of people they had hired. Yet no one was calling them slow back in 2015.
It wouldn't be expected for MaiaSpace to make a ton of progress in its first year, but ArianeGroup will need to put a lot more resources into MaiaSpace for it to achieve its goal of launching the new rocket in 2026. We'll see what Year 2 brings for MaiaSpace to get a better idea of the seriousness of this effort.