Rocket Report: Starbase comes alive again; China launches four times
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
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! 
Upvote
107
(109
/
-2)
"With funding from Amazon, United Launch Alliance is spending about $500 million to upgrade and expand infrastructure at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida,"
I know Amazon isn't Blue Origin but the business of building out infrastructure (as opposed to actually launching anything) has a familiar meter to it.
I know Amazon isn't Blue Origin but the business of building out infrastructure (as opposed to actually launching anything) has a familiar meter to it.
Upvote
44
(48
/
-4)
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.
Upvote
88
(88
/
0)
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 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
Upvote
41
(41
/
0)
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.
Why would Methane not be a reasonable alternative?
edit: completing thought.
and spelling.
Last edited:
Upvote
4
(16
/
-12)
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
The Amazon -> ULA -> Blue Origin relationship has always seemed really weird to me.
Upvote
29
(30
/
-1)
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.
Upvote
74
(74
/
0)
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.
Upvote
42
(42
/
0)
Why do a static fire of more than a few seconds? The booster is only blasting the pad for 5-10 seconds at launch (test flight 1 a bit longer as they slowly started up the engines and spooled to full power), and every engine on the booster has had much longer runs on the test stand at McGregor already.
Upvote
43
(43
/
0)
Upvote
7
(10
/
-3)
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.
Upvote
65
(65
/
0)
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
Upvote
-16
(7
/
-23)
What you're describing as "easy" with the F9 wasn't considered easy at all when they started doing it. In fact the usual suspects pretty much assumed this was madness and SpaceX would never succeed with it.
I see very little reason for SH/SH ending up any different. And mind you, SpaceX made it to orbit with the F1 only on the fourth try and wrecked a whole lot of F9 boosters before they perfected reentry and landing. It always only looks simple with hindsight.
Upvote
111
(111
/
0)
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.
Upvote
28
(29
/
-1)
***********************************
***********************************
SpaceX schedule ...
SpaceX - Jupiter 3 aka EchoStar XXIV - FH B1064.3+B1074.1+B1065.3 from KSC LC-39A:
Primary Day = Saturday, July 29 at 03:04-04:43 UTC (Friday at 23:04-00:43 EDT) (convert time).
Backup Day #1 = Sunday, July 30 at 03:04-04:43 UTC (Saturday at 23:04-00:43 EDT) (convert time).
Backup Day #2 = Monday, July 31 at ~03:04-04:43 UTC (Sunday at ~23:04-00:43 EDT) (convert time).
Backup Day #3 = Tuesday, August 1 at ~03:04-04:43 UTC (Monday at ~23:04-00:43 EDT) (convert time).
Backup Day #4 = Wednesday, August 2 at ~03:04-04:43 UTC (Tuesday at ~23:04-00:43 EDT) (convert time).
Note: The side boosters will RTLS to LZ-1 and LZ-2. The center core will be expended.
SpaceX hosted webcast:
Note: Deployment is NET 23:32 local for me, so I won't be online for it.
SpaceX - Starlink Group 6-8 - F9 from CCSFS SLC-40:
Primary Day = Sunday, July 30 at ~~~23:52 UTC (~~~19:52 EDT) (convert time).
Backup Day #1 = Monday, July 31 at ~~~23:27 UTC (~~~19:27 EDT) (convert time).
Backup Day #2 = Tuesday, August 1 at ~~~23:01 UTC (~~~19:01 EDT) (convert time).
Backup Day #3 = Wednesday, August 2 at ~~~22:36 UTC (~~~18:36 EDT) (convert time).
Backup Day #4 = Thursday, August 3 at ~~~22:11 UTC (~~~18:11 EDT) (convert time).
Backup Day #5 = Friday, August 4 at ~~~21:46 UTC (~~~17:46 EDT) (convert time).
Backup Day #6 = Saturday, August 5 at ~~~21:20 UTC (~~~17:20 EDT) (convert time).
This launch is postponed TBD.
SpaceX - Galaxy 13R aka Galaxy 37 (includes Horizons 4) - F9 from CCSFS SLC-40:
NET Thursday, August 3 at ~~~04:30 UTC (~~~00:30 EDT) (convert time).
SpaceX - Commercial Crew Crew-7 - F9 B1081.1 + Crew Dragon C210.3 Endurance from KSC LC-39A:
NET Thursday, August 17 at ~10:56 UTC (~06:56 EDT) (convert time).
* Dock = Friday, August 18 at ~06:45 UTC (~02:45 EDT) (convert time).
Note: May slip again because of the delays to the Jupiter 3 launch.
__________________________________________________
Rocket Lab schedule ...
Rocket Lab - Flight #40 'We Love the Nightlife' (Acadia-1 for Capella Space) - Electron from Māhia LC-1B:
Primary Day = Sunday, July 30 at 05:00-07:00 UTC (convert time).
The launch period runs from Friday, July 28, to Tuesday, August 15.
Note: No booster recovery attempt.
Press Kit: https://www.rocketlabusa.com/assets/Uploads/We-Love-The-Nightlife-Press-Kit2...pdf
__________________________________________________
Other ...
Firefly Aerospace - FLTA003 'VICTUS NOX' (USSF Tactically Responsive Launch-3) - Alpha from VSFB SLC-2W:
Likely August (tactically responsive space capability demonstration).
Mission Details: https://fireflyspace.com/missions/victus-nox/.
ULA - Astrobotic's Peregrine Lander - Vulcan-Centaur VC2S from CCSFS SLC-41:
NET 4Q 2023.
Live updates: https://www.ulalaunch.com/rockets/vulcan-centaur/countdown-to-vulcan.
Note: The first flight of Vulcan-Centaur (with two Blue Origin BE-4 engines).
ULA - Boeing Starliner CFT - Atlas V N22 from CCSFS LC-41:
TBD.
SpaceX - Jupiter 3 aka EchoStar XXIV - FH B1064.3+B1074.1+B1065.3 from KSC LC-39A:
Primary Day = Saturday, July 29 at 03:04-04:43 UTC (Friday at 23:04-00:43 EDT) (convert time).
Backup Day #1 = Sunday, July 30 at 03:04-04:43 UTC (Saturday at 23:04-00:43 EDT) (convert time).
Backup Day #2 = Monday, July 31 at ~03:04-04:43 UTC (Sunday at ~23:04-00:43 EDT) (convert time).
Backup Day #3 = Tuesday, August 1 at ~03:04-04:43 UTC (Monday at ~23:04-00:43 EDT) (convert time).
Backup Day #4 = Wednesday, August 2 at ~03:04-04:43 UTC (Tuesday at ~23:04-00:43 EDT) (convert time).
Note: The side boosters will RTLS to LZ-1 and LZ-2. The center core will be expended.
SpaceX hosted webcast:
Note: Deployment is NET 23:32 local for me, so I won't be online for it.
SpaceX - Starlink Group 6-8 - F9 from CCSFS SLC-40:
Backup Day #1 = Monday, July 31 at ~~~23:27 UTC (~~~19:27 EDT) (convert time).
Backup Day #2 = Tuesday, August 1 at ~~~23:01 UTC (~~~19:01 EDT) (convert time).
Backup Day #3 = Wednesday, August 2 at ~~~22:36 UTC (~~~18:36 EDT) (convert time).
Backup Day #4 = Thursday, August 3 at ~~~22:11 UTC (~~~18:11 EDT) (convert time).
Backup Day #5 = Friday, August 4 at ~~~21:46 UTC (~~~17:46 EDT) (convert time).
Backup Day #6 = Saturday, August 5 at ~~~21:20 UTC (~~~17:20 EDT) (convert time).
This launch is postponed TBD.
SpaceX - Galaxy 13R aka Galaxy 37 (includes Horizons 4) - F9 from CCSFS SLC-40:
NET Thursday, August 3 at ~~~04:30 UTC (~~~00:30 EDT) (convert time).
SpaceX - Commercial Crew Crew-7 - F9 B1081.1 + Crew Dragon C210.3 Endurance from KSC LC-39A:
NET Thursday, August 17 at ~10:56 UTC (~06:56 EDT) (convert time).
* Dock = Friday, August 18 at ~06:45 UTC (~02:45 EDT) (convert time).
Note: May slip again because of the delays to the Jupiter 3 launch.
__________________________________________________
Rocket Lab schedule ...
Rocket Lab - Flight #40 'We Love the Nightlife' (Acadia-1 for Capella Space) - Electron from Māhia LC-1B:
Primary Day = Sunday, July 30 at 05:00-07:00 UTC (convert time).
The launch period runs from Friday, July 28, to Tuesday, August 15.
Note: No booster recovery attempt.
Press Kit: https://www.rocketlabusa.com/assets/Uploads/We-Love-The-Nightlife-Press-Kit2...pdf
__________________________________________________
Other ...
Firefly Aerospace - FLTA003 'VICTUS NOX' (USSF Tactically Responsive Launch-3) - Alpha from VSFB SLC-2W:
Likely August (tactically responsive space capability demonstration).
Mission Details: https://fireflyspace.com/missions/victus-nox/.
ULA - Astrobotic's Peregrine Lander - Vulcan-Centaur VC2S from CCSFS SLC-41:
NET 4Q 2023.
Live updates: https://www.ulalaunch.com/rockets/vulcan-centaur/countdown-to-vulcan.
Note: The first flight of Vulcan-Centaur (with two Blue Origin BE-4 engines).
ULA - Boeing Starliner CFT - Atlas V N22 from CCSFS LC-41:
TBD.
Upvote
40
(40
/
0)
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.
Upvote
62
(63
/
-1)
Zibplippperman
Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
I have a hunch that sometime in the future the ULA partnership will consist of Lockheed Martin and Blue Origin, with financial backing from Amazon.
Upvote
6
(8
/
-2)
All of these issues and more were addressed and discussed at some length In Eric's story on Wednesday:
The US government is taking a serious step toward space-based nuclear propulsion
"NASA is looking to go to Mars with this system."
arstechnica.com
Upvote
59
(59
/
0)
China is working on it, at least on paper. Pallas-1 is planned to be a smaller Falcon clone (multiple gas generator keralox engines, grid fins, landing legs, even a future plan for a 3-booster configuration).
But that said, right now a lot of their launch cadence comes from solid rockets and hypergols derived from military applications. That allows them to put lots of satellites up, and to do so frequently, but I don't think it does much to advance the state of their rocketry. Although for sure it gives their "private-sector" civilian launch companies a bootstrap in finance and launch operations & logistics.
Landing on an autonomous drone ship at sea is risky too, and they failed a lot before it worked at all, let alone became reliable. Not everything they plan works out - fairing recovery is a thing, but not they way they originally planned. They're pretty good at pivoting to something else if Plan A doesn't work out; hot staging itself is an example of that.
Upvote
68
(68
/
0)
greybeardengineer
Ars Scholae Palatinae
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.
Upvote
55
(58
/
-3)
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!
Upvote
23
(23
/
0)
Additional Launches This Week
Beyond the next three launches, there will be three more launches before the next Rocket Report comes out.
Mon, July 30 | Electron/Curie | Acadia 1 | LC-1B Mahia Peninsula, New Zealand | 5:00 UTC
Wed, Aug 2 | Antares 230+ | CRS NG-19 | LP-0A Wallops Flight Facility, Virginia | 00:31 UTC
Thur, Aug 3 | Falcon 9 | Starlink 6-8 | SLC-40 Cape Canaveral SFS, Florida, | 04:15 UTC
(At least one source indicates this launch is likely to be delayed.)
Beyond the next three launches, there will be three more launches before the next Rocket Report comes out.
Mon, July 30 | Electron/Curie | Acadia 1 | LC-1B Mahia Peninsula, New Zealand | 5:00 UTC
Wed, Aug 2 | Antares 230+ | CRS NG-19 | LP-0A Wallops Flight Facility, Virginia | 00:31 UTC
Thur, Aug 3 | Falcon 9 | Starlink 6-8 | SLC-40 Cape Canaveral SFS, Florida, | 04:15 UTC
(At least one source indicates this launch is likely to be delayed.)
Upvote
26
(26
/
0)
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.
Upvote
62
(62
/
0)
I interpreted that to mean the Centaur V's engines (2 RL10 engines built by Aerojet Rocketdyne).
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
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.
Edit to add:
That does make sense.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
As yet another option, it could be referring to the GEM-63XL solids used for most configurations. Probably all of BE-4, RL10, and GEM-63XL will need some investment to increase the potential launch cadence.
Upvote
16
(16
/
0)
greybeardengineer
Ars Scholae Palatinae
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.
Upvote
22
(23
/
-1)
I think the hardest part of reuse was having confidence that demand would increase enough to pay back investment.
ULA is owned by Boeing and Lockheed. Those two consider ULA to be a cash cow. They were not going to invest their own money in giving the company a future, although they would not turn down a government hand out. Vulcan was intended to milk NSSL launches. The DoD wanted two providers for resilience so being one of the two companies able to reach the required orbits meant they could charge whatever they needed to be profitable. When SpaceX started reusing rockets ULA came out with a smart reuse power point. Back then hardly anyone believed it was anything but some guff to fob off investors. When it bacame obvious that New Glenn would be a rocket of the far distant future Amazon bought all the available Atlas Vs an a flock of Vulcans. Add in Gradatim Mañana's rate of BE-4 production and smart reuse had potential value. The power points were pulled down from a dusty attic and got some serious consideration - enough to get a NASA grant for the required hypersonic decelerator.
Ariane is a jobs program that launched about once per month. With say 10x reuse, 90% of the jobs would vanish - although perhaps 10% would come back to refurbish rockets. Not a good sales pitch to EU politicians. When Falcon 9 ate Ariane 5's commercial market it became clear that the funding model for Ariane 6 was broken: half governments, half commercial launches. EU governments had to decide if they wanted to fund 100% of Ariane 6 or spend more R&D for cheaper launches and a slice of the commercial market. The governments have taken the bold decision to procrastinate.
ISRO (India Space Agency) is in a similar position to the EU. They do amazing things with a limited budget. Their rockets are solids and hypergolics - not a good starting point for reuse.
Roscosmos have tried to retain their launch capability after the breakup of the Soviet Union while modernizing their facilities. The cash went on corruption all the way up to Putin who then rebuked Rogozin for corruption. Money for reuse is not going to appear and if it did it would disappear just as quickly.
RocketLab were not going to do reuse but were pushed into it because buying the manufacturing equipment to increase production takes years. The surviving small launch startups know that they need a reusable medium sized rocket to be relevant. Some of them have the funding to be in with a chance.
Upvote
78
(80
/
-2)
The view of progress towards another Starship launch at Boca Chica seems to gloss over the serious regulatory issues Starship is facing in light of the statement the FAA made this week: https://www.expressnews.com/business/article/faa-no-spacex-starship-launch-soon-18261658.php
FAA hasn't received an incident investigation report from SpaceX--
FAA hasn't received an incident investigation report from SpaceX--
Upvote
22
(32
/
-10)
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:
(emphasis mine)
Upvote
49
(55
/
-6)
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.
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.
Upvote
39
(40
/
-1)
"MaiaSpace reported its accomplishments in the first year of operations included hiring staff..."
Well that right there should be Mission Accomplished by ESA standards, right?
Well that right there should be Mission Accomplished by ESA standards, right?
Upvote
34
(37
/
-3)
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.
Your fuel is water with a radioactive salt dissolved in it, at such concentrations that it's actually supercritical. Your fuel tank is filled with neutron absorbing baffles, which keeps it from detonating. You pump your water into the engine bell, timed such that it goes fully critical as it reaches the nozzle throat. Use a pure water shield around the bell surface to help cool and protect it, as well as get some extra thrust.
Bam, all the insane temperatures you could want from chemical OR nuclear reactions, no complicated reactor, and the extremely radioactive byproducts are getting tossed at high speed (ie, solar escape velocity) behind you.
Upvote
42
(44
/
-2)
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.
Upvote
13
(14
/
-1)
Not ONE other company! Besides the many companies currently working on it, and the literal billions of dollars of investment going into those companies.
Short of committing industrial espionage, "copying" SpaceX's approach still means figuring out the answers to a lot of hard questions on your own.
Upvote
39
(40
/
-1)
I'm not getting that tone from the author.
Nothing about being slow, only underfunded.
Upvote
29
(30
/
-1)