USA's efforts to stop relying on Russian-built rocket engines derailed by issues with Blue Origin's BE-4
- Reference: 1624382048
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2021/06/22/gao_engine/
- Source link:
The June [1]GAO Weapon Systems Annual Assessment report to Congress [PDF] makes grim reading for fans of billionaire-built space stuff. [2]Noted by NASAWatch , the section of the report concerning the National Security Space Launch (NSSL) was clear about the challenges faced by a "US-produced rocket engine under development for ULA's Vulcan launch vehicle."
What engine could that be?
[3]
ULA's Vulcan Centaur, self-described as "America's Rocket" and slated to replace the existing Atlas V for NSSL payloads, is powered by a variety of engines. Up to six Northrop Grumman Graphite Epoxy Motor (GEM) 63XL Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) can be strapped to the first stage and the second stage uses a pair of workhorse RL10C engines (which have been used on nearly 400 successful flights).
[4]Intrepid Change.org user launches petition to make Jeff Bezos' space trip one-way
[5]Spacewalk veterans take a trip outside the ISS to pump up the power with new solar arrays
[6]Fancy the ultimate no-Air-outside-bnb? NASA willing to rent out ISS for two weeks
[7]Artemis I core stage finally pointing in the right direction at Kennedy Space Center
The first stage, however, is also due to be powered by a pair of BE-4 engines, manufactured by Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin. These have yet to see action on the way to orbit. As well as ULA's new launcher, the engines also power Blue Origin's New Glenn, the maiden flight of which has been punted [8]to the end of 2022 .
The GAO report noted the "technical challenges" were related to "the igniter and booster capabilities required" and that there was a risk of qualification not being complete in time. The result could be a switch back to trusty Atlas V, which carries its own problems.
[9]
The first stage of the Atlas V is powered by RD-180 engines, manufactured in the Russian Federation. The NSSL's goal is to remove this reliance, although an amendment permits the use of 18 more engines for contracts awarded through 2022. The Vulcan Centaur and its BE-4-engined first stage is ULA's primary solution to the problem. Time, however, is getting a bit tight.
As for SpaceX, its Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets are certified for national security launches, although the GAO noted that the Heavy had been "on track to support its first [national security] mission in May 2021."
[10]
The Register asked Blue Origin and ULA for their take on the report and will update should either respond. ®
Get our [11]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-222.pdf
[2] http://nasawatch.com/
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YNJdgkYBXZHqmVbBaGzZfgAAAAw&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[4] https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/16/intrepid_changeorg_user_launches_petition/
[5] https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/16/iss_rosa/
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/15/nasa_rents_international_space_station/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/15/artemis_i_core_stage_vertical_kennedy_space_center/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2021/02/26/bezos_and_branson/
[9] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YNJdgkYBXZHqmVbBaGzZfgAAAAw&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[10] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YNJdgkYBXZHqmVbBaGzZfgAAAAw&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[11] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Use Raptor instead ?
It's not a drop in replacement though, as the Raptor is less powerful - see the excellent article by Everyday Astronaut at https://everydayastronaut.com/raptor-engine/.
Capitlaism
They use the Russian engines because they're cheaper
Why not just have the Russians launch your payload?
Surely insisting that your own industry build them instead of letting the market decide is communism?
"Demand Russian Rockets to Fight Communism" - too long of a slogan to fit on a hat ?
Re: Capitlaism
No, the Russians have been charging well above what "the free market" can offer; basically exploiting the fact that they were the only supplier and where out of reach of monopolies legislation. There is also a significant security risk if you allow your "enemy" to supply engines for intelligence / military missions.
SpaceX v BO will be more interesting, as they will have to compete on commercial grounds (unlike a lot of the rest of the US incumbents).
Edited to add:
A table towards the end of the article at https://everydayastronaut.com/raptor-engine/ shows that the RD-180 is not a cheap option.
Wrong development target
The decision to use Russian engines was taken years ago because there was a ready supply of cost effective, reliable, engines. This also meant that ULA could avoid the expense and hassle of developing a new engine, a big savings for the conglomerate as they could save big on facilities, personnel and the like. (Rocket engines like the ones used on the Shuttle were developed locally but today's version of the plant where the engine was proudly displayed outside for many years is but a shadow of its former self.) Like a lot of sound commercial decisions it carried with it some awful implications, one being the run down and even the export of expertise and talent. Rushing to catch up, to replace that Russian component, is a waste of time -- everyone's moved on, SpaceX is now doing the interesting aerospace development (and probably hired the best of the engineers displaced from the other plants) so a rush project in the slimmed down industry to duplicate what is effectively a close to obsolete engine design is doomed to failure.
SpaceX has done what the ULA should have been doing. Its successful and as such I reckon its only a matter of time before reusable boosters start turning up in some remote R&D facility in Asia (by which time SpaceX will have moved the bar a bit more).
Re: Wrong development target
One of the conditions was that the Russian engines would be eventually licensed and produced by an American company... and Congress never allocated funds or a contract.
So they have no one but themselves to blame.
Seriously?
It's amazing how some people continuously fail to make rocket engines that work. I mean, come on. It's not rocket scie-... oh.
Don't get up. I'll see myself out.
RD-180
The story of the RD-180 is actually quite interesting and the Russians were ahead of the Americans
then and it's still a viable engine after all these years.
Try a search for RD-180 on YouTube there is quite a lot about it.
The Engines That Came In From The Cold - And how The NK-33/RD-180 Came To The USA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMbl_ofF3AM
Atlas V - an American rocket with a Russian engine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkJXxicuIp8
I wonder how much America's dumbed down education system, from kindergarten to doctorate and masters degrees, has contributed to the rocket problem? To say nothing about the actual cost to the parents and students of being taught to the tests, instead of comprehension.
Use Raptor instead ?
If asked nicely then SpaceX would probably sell Raptor engines to ULA for only $10million each (a nice 900% markup on the production cost of $1million each!!) .
Icon for Bezo's head if the ULA used Raptor instead of BE-4 ===============>