New ULA Launcher to be Announced - Blue Origin/ULA New Rocket Engine Partnership

[Airlock]

http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/space-flight-news/ula-blue-origin-announce-partnership-develop-new-rocket-engine/

ULA and Blue Origin are partnering up to fund and develop the 550,000-lfb thrust LNG/LOX BE-4 Engine, supposedly intended to end reliance on the Russian RD-180. The first test flight is targeted for 2019, with the engine being used for both ULA and Blue Origin launch vehicles.

Fact Sheet pdf: https://d1ljm9hc65qhyd.cloudfront.net/press-releases/2014-09-17/BE-4-Fact-Sheet.pdf

Q&A: http://www.ulalaunch.com/faq-ula-and-blue-origin-partnership.aspx

Honestly, doesn't the 2019 target date seem a bit too optimistic?

Also of note, ULA plans to reveal a new launcher by the end of the year, Atlas VI perhaps?

https://twitter.com/ulalaunch/status/512294258389577728

"@wkann We plan to select our next generation launch system by the end of the year and will then be in a position to share more."

Wow! Lots of new developments in space news over the past few days!

Edited September 17, 2014 by Airlock

[Kryten]

This FAQ makes it pretty clear the new engine is for the next gen vehicle. Given what else we know about their projects, I'm going to say; 2XBE-4 booster with Delta IV tankage, 1X xcor LH2 engine upper stage with centaur tankage, and Atlas avionics.

[Streetwind]

Honestly, doesn't the 2019 target date seem a bit too optimistic?

From the article you linked:

"BE-4 development has been underway for three years now, and component testing is ongoing at Blue Origin’s West Texas facilities."

Basically if they're flying it in 2019, then they will have taken 8 years. That's longer than the entire race to the Moon.

EDIT: For those of us who prefer sane measurement systems, this engine is rated at just under 2.5 MN of thrust. No statement is made as to whether that's sea level or vacuum, but they say "up to", so I'm assuming vacuum.

For comparison, a few other US first stage engines (all vacuum):

SpaceX Merlin 1D = 0.72 MN (Falcon 9 v1.1)

Rocketdyne RS-25 =2.28 MN (Space Shuttle, Space Launch System)

Rocketdyne RS-68 = 3.14 MN (Delta IV)

Rocketdyne F-1 = 7.75 MN (Saturn V)

SpaceX Raptor = 8.2 MN (under development)

And the engine it's supposed to replace:

Energomash RD-180 = 4.15 MN (Atlas V)

Edited September 17, 2014 by Streetwind

[Airlock]

From the article you linked:

"BE-4 development has been underway for three years now, and component testing is ongoing at Blue Origin’s West Texas facilities."

Basically if they're flying it in 2019, then they will have taken 8 years. That's longer than the entire race to the Moon.

Thanks for clearing that up, should have seen it. Woops!

[Kryten]

This news isn't great for Aroejet Rocketdyne. This thing will probably replace DIV and AV, leaving nothing for them but RS-25 on the SLS. That's barely an engine a year...

[sgt_flyer]

Rocketdyne have other engines - it's them who have the AJ-26 (NK-33) license - for the best rocket engine ever made (NK-33's refitted by Rocketdyne are currently used on the Antares) - and NASA will maybe end up selecting Rocketdyne / dynetics Pyrios booster and it's F-1B engines for SLS block II.

on the other end, it was really time for ULA to devellop a new rocket if they wanted to keep in line with the competition. (especially a new cheaper upper stage - those RL-10 engines are waaay too costly)

[Kryten]

OSC have been trying to replace NK-33 for a long time already. They're currently involved in a lawsuit against ULA and RD-AMROSS due to their monopoly on importing RD-180s.

[Streetwind]

And it's far from "the best rocket engine ever made", too. If it was, they wouldn't have stopped manufacturing it in favor of other options. It's good, but nowadays we can do better.

[Armchair Rocket Scientist]

Rocketdyne have other engines - it's them who have the AJ-26 (NK-33) license - for the best rocket engine ever made (NK-33's refitted by Rocketdyne are currently used on the Antares) - and NASA will maybe end up selecting Rocketdyne / dynetics Pyrios booster and it's F-1B engines for SLS block II.

on the other end, it was really time for ULA to develop a new rocket if they wanted to keep in line with the competition. (especially a new cheaper upper stage - those RL-10 engines are waaay too costly)

Speaking of the F-1B: I calculated that a rocket with an F-1A first stage and a J-2 second stage could put a little over 20 tons into LEO. With an optional Centaur-D upper stage I imagine the payload to GTO or interplanetary trajectories would probably beat rockets like the Titan IV, D4H, Atlas V 551, Ariane 5, Proton-M, etc.

Since we're already reviving the F-1 and J-2 for the SLS, why not use the F-1B and J-2X to develop a new heavy lifter? In addition to being an excellent launcher for interplanetary probes, high-orbit satellites, and space station modules, it would be perfect for the Orion on LEO missions (IIRC right now the only rocket that fits the bill is the Delta IV Heavy).

[SargeRho]

An F-1B based Liquid Fuel Booster has been proposed for the SLS actually. It's what the twin engine booster in the ARM pack is based on.

[sgt_flyer]

And it's far from "the best rocket engine ever made", too. If it was, they wouldn't have stopped manufacturing it in favor of other options. It's good, but nowadays we can do better.

Well - for a kerolox engine, NK-33s remains the best all around engine ever built - the RD-180 has a slightly better ISP, but a much worse TWR (the RD-180's TWR is almost half of a NK-33), while spaceX's merlin 1D has a slightly better TWR, but worse ISP. All in all, i still consider the nk-33s the best kerolox engines ever built

Soviets stopped their production because they wanted to dissimulate N-1 failures ( and NK-33s were never really tested - only NK-15's flew on n-1)

@Armchair Rocket Scientist - well, one of Dynetics proposals with the Pyrios, is that it could be used as the first stage for a LEO rocket for orion (kinda like the planned Ares-I launcher concept - with pyrios instead of an SRB)

[Kryten]

NK-33 has a higher T/W than RD170-series engines because they contain vectoring mechanisms. An RD-170 derivative without vectoring has already been developed to replace NK-33 on Soyuz 2.1v (RD-193), and it's close enough to be a simple drop-in replacement.

[Woopert]

I heard about this, someone I know is a photographer and photographed the press conference. And I got some goodies with it! -- a USB drive with ULA logo, pictures, and video; a ULA folder with this PDF included; and lastly, a ULA custom cookie.

I do wish ULA the best in their future endeavors but I still think at this point, SpaceX does it best (LEO, GEO applications). Also, cheers to those at Blue Origin from saving us from rely on foreign rocket engines!

[Kryten]

I just noticed something. ULA gave the time of the first flight as 2019. However, BO have published a fact sheet (EDIT: part of the pdf linked above) that states it to be 'ready to fly' in 2017. Assuming it's not a mistake, this could mean they intend to have their own launcher ready that soon.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Kryten

[sojourner]

The pdf linked above doesn't mention the engine being ready in 2017. It only states that testing would begin in 2016. Also, don't confuse the engine being ready in 2017 with the rocket it goes on being ready by that time.

[Armchair Rocket Scientist]

An F-1B based Liquid Fuel Booster has been proposed for the SLS actually. It's what the twin engine booster in the ARM pack is based on.

I know. What I'm saying is that a launch vehicle based off a single F-1B engine might also be effective.

[NovaSilisko]

Basically if they're flying it in 2019, then they will have taken 8 years. That's longer than the entire race to the Moon.

Well, the F-1 engine was designed in the mid to late 1950s, with the first test firing occurring in 1959. The first Saturn V launch wasn't until 1967. Seems like a pretty standard timeframe for this sort of thing.

Also remember BO was developing this with their own money til now. ULA will be a boon for them.

Edited September 18, 2014 by NovaSilisko

[Tommygun]

Will this be the first major use of Liquefied natural gas as an engine fuel?

[Streetwind]

Depends how you define "natural gas". It usually carries a variety of molecules, but it's always largely methane, and some sources yield close to pure methane. NASA is already flying a methane engine on its Morpheus lander test vehicle, and SpaceX's Raptor engine may be ready before the BE-4. But yeah, strictly speaking I don't think we've ever seen an engine running on natural gas before.

[78stonewobble]

Speaking of the F-1B: I calculated that a rocket with an F-1A first stage and a J-2 second stage could put a little over 20 tons into LEO. With an optional Centaur-D upper stage I imagine the payload to GTO or interplanetary trajectories would probably beat rockets like the Titan IV, D4H, Atlas V 551, Ariane 5, Proton-M, etc.

Since we're already reviving the F-1 and J-2 for the SLS, why not use the F-1B and J-2X to develop a new heavy lifter? In addition to being an excellent launcher for interplanetary probes, high-orbit satellites, and space station modules, it would be perfect for the Orion on LEO missions (IIRC right now the only rocket that fits the bill is the Delta IV Heavy).

A single engine F-1A first stage?

o.O

[Kryten]

Given this is the closest recent related thread I could find, and it doesn't really deserve it's own, Ill just drop this here. As you may no, Orbital Sciences corp. are having their own engine troubles-they're working with a limited stock of soviet-built NK-33 engines, and don't even have enough left for the next planned contract of supply flights for NASA. They've been working on getting a replacement for a while, and we finally know what they've decided on - RD-180, he same engine ULA are leaving behind.

Orbital Sciences: We settled our antitrust lawsuit w/ Russian RD-180 engine seller RD Amross & are negotiating an RD-180 access deal w/ ULA.

[Streetwind]

That's always been their plan, but they've also always worked very closely with ATK. In fact the Antares rocket having a liquid fuel first stage at all is fairly unusual for Orbital Sciences in general

So should there be any issues with obtaining the RD-180 (which I don't expect, but just in case) they can probably get a solid first stage for Antares too. I wouldn't put it past them (and ATK) to idly ponder drafts for such a proposal to the point where it could be deployed on short notice (1-2 years) if necessary.

[Kryten]

Solid first stage of that size doesn't work from Wallops-it's too close to exiting settlements if one goes boom. They'd have to produce a whole new pad at a different site; not quick or cheap.

[rdfox]

As an idle note, during the late-60s development studies of "evolved" Saturn launch vehicles, Boeing/MSFC proposed a super-heavy-lifter option that would have put literally 1000 tons into LEO in a single throw. It consisted of four stretched, F-1A equipped S-ICs clustered as a first stage, with four stretched S-IIs clustered as a second stage, all attached to a common payload bus.

That's right, they proposed essentially strapping four Saturn Vs side-by-side to build a super-heavy-lifter.

Since there were no real applications for that kind of lifting capacity (I mean, really, other than launching an ISS-sized space station or a manned Mars mission in a single throw, what need IS there for the ability to put a WW2 destroyer into orbit?), this proposal never went beyond a paper study to determine the maximum feasible payload that they could get with evolved Saturn technology...