In Search of New Glenn

Staged CombustionLeave a comment

On September 17th, 2016, Jeff Bezos, vaunted billionaire Amazon founder with the biceps of Russian (ahem, ROC) gymnast, tweeted out a graphic on behalf of his upstart rocket company Blue Origin. The picture showed a series of increasingly larger rockets with the Titanic Saturn V moon rocket looming at the end. Right next to mankind’s most famous launch vehicle, was a previously unseen Blue Origin rocket. Named New Glenn, after the American pilot/astronaut/icon, it was a simultaneously sleek and sizable.

Powered by four of the company’s in-house BE-4 rocket engines, the formidable staged-combustion engines (we’re a sucker for those around these parts) generates some 250 tons of thrust with high efficiency. The rocket would be able to lift 45 tons to Low Earth Orbit, just behind SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy for the most powerful in the world. To any orbit beyond LEO, it would lift more. Accompanied by a planned reusable first stage, it would also be affordable by any relevant metric. Bezos envisioned it would bring both satellites and humans to space and was the next step towards a vision of millions leaving Earth’s gravity well.

The three stage New Glenn has reportedly ceased development. A stainless steel second stage, intended for reusability, may have taken its place. Notably absent here is SpaceX’s Starship/Super Heavy, which would dwarf even the Saturn V. Image Credit: New Origin

Pretty Pictures, Limited Progress

Here in the present, Jeff Bezos has just returned to earth from his rocket, albeit the rather more diminutive New Shepard and not the looming tower announced a half decade previous. Lauded and maligned in nearly equal measure, Jeff Bezos’s sub-orbital hop was none the less an impressive feat the furthers opens the space tourism door. But with the renewed focus on Bezos’s stellar aspirations comes a further question: Where’s that darn New Glenn?

Blue Origin has been rather hushed concerning the larger rockets progress. Impressive images of command centers and rockets factory’s can be found on its social media pages and point the consistent level of funding pouring into the program. However, actual evidence of flight hardware is harder to come by, with a lonely first stage tank video being prominent.

This reality speaks to a larger theme by many within the industry. Slow and questionably methodical, Blue Origin represents much of the “Old Space” cadre. Meanwhile, its consistently outpaced by its rival SpaceX in both speed of development and capability delivered. Even ULA, not known for an excess of innovation, is twiddling its thumbs waiting for the BE-4 engines Blue Origin is obligated to deliver.

Trampolines Won’t Work

Speaking BE-4 engines, that’s proving a headache all of its own. It was designed by Blue Origin to run on methane and oxygen. These chemicals also favored by SpaceX in its Raptor engine family for their density, easy handling, and acceptable performance. And BE-4 has shown promising performance in testing. On paper it even compares favorably to Raptor, matching it in thrust and likely within a hair’s breadth its specific impulse. (Specific impulse or isp is measurement of a rockets efficiency best described as how fast your propellant is exhausted from the rocket engine. Blue Origin has not released BE-4’s specific impulse figure.)

But Blue Origins sluggish pace in delivering these engines has raised tensions between the company’s, even sparking some rather piercing commentary on the subject between Elon Musk and ULA CEO Tory Bruno. There is a likely a logical explanation for this, such as the recent semiconductor and basic materials shortages in supply lines. But with Bezos’s resources, and a whole host of other rocket companies seemingly impervious to such issues, eyebrows are still raised.

Bezos didn’t become the worlds richest man by being blind to his own weaknesses. Reports have arisen of a potential pivot in Blue Origins design, specifically constructing a reusable second stage for New Glenn. More important that the actual design decision is the supporting change in development work, embracing the go fast and fail forward mentality that has rewarded its competitors. Will this suffice to save New Glenn’s future? It’s tough to say now, but with a late 2022 launch date proposed, a dramatic ramp up in development pace is sorely needed.

SLS Roars, Sputters

Staged CombustionLeave a comment

The wonderful colors of hydrolox combustion, courtesy of the RS-25 engines. Credit NASA Television.

For nearly a calendar year, NASA’s Space Launch System has been undergoing a series of final tests at the agency’s Stennis Space Center in Mississippi. Routinely described as “exhaustive”, this eight-part test culminated this past Saturday afternoon with a test firing of all four RS-25 engines from the main core.

With a throaty thunder the RS-25’s, previous workhorses of the Space Shuttle and long considered a magnum opus in engine design, roared to life. And then, all too swiftly, they fell silent. That is not some metaphor of an author yearning for everlasting decibels from controlled combustion. It really was too short, approximately seven minutes short in test scheduled for eight.

The reasons are not yet clear. NASA staff from the flight test center mentioned an MCF (Major Component Failure), an opaque term implying a hardware failure. Stennis Director Richard Gilbrech seemed confident it was not a ground system problem, but rather something with the rocket. John Honeycutt, SLS Program manager, mentioned a flash around the thermal blanket system of the RS-25 rockets. Designed to protect each of the four engines from the fury of its brethren, the blanked was reconfigured from its original Space Shuttle configuration to provide better performance on the SLS.

However, it’s certainly risky to attribute to the failures of yesterdays test to any one system yet. More data will be analyzed, and the answer will be found. The question is the timing and expense in doing so. That latter question points to the more damning problem facing NASA, the SLS program itself.

Its nearly lamentable, and at least comical, to observe the differences in progress between SpaceX’s Starship/ Super Heavy program and NASA’s SLS. Both are heavy launch vehicles, with the former perhaps more ambitious in its design and goals. Despite this, SpaceX has consistently outpaced and outperformed its government counterpart development, despite a half decade advantage in time and ten billion dollars plus advantage in funding for SLS. This disparity looks to only grow worse, as the operational costs, how much it costs to launch each individual rocket, are set to be 2 billion plus for SLS, and potentially below 10 million for Starship. (This latter figure has been estimated even lower by Musk, although there are healthy reasons to see that as both extraordinarily optimistic and far out.)

But step back from SLS’s development performance and even leave aside credible if cringe inducing accusations of aeronautical job programs. What, exactly, is NASA even doing in the launch market at all? Certainly, when SLS kicked off in 2010 it had no true rival, and the only credible plans for a heavy launch vehicle were SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy. To doubt in a private companies’ ability to self-fund such a project was entirely understandable. But in 2021 A.D., not only has Falcon Heavy been flying for several years, and Starship making rapid progress, but Blue Origin with its New Glenn vehicle and ULA with its Vulcan Heavy variant all present legitimate, cost effective and highly performant options that are due for introduction right around when SLS is.

All those vehicles do lack in one key area. Customers. It is generally rare for missions demanding such large rockets to come around. SLS itself has only the Artemis program, and perhaps Europa Clipper (although even that mission is tentative to launch on SLS due to delays.) But NASA itself can serve to provide those emissions to its commercial partners. This enables not only better use of NASA funding, but the commercial entities to expand their capabilities, and refine their work, lowering costs and increasing the performance of their vehicles still further.

What could eighteen billion in U.S. greenbacks spent on SLS buy for NASA science? Let’s look at the four of the most recent and most NASA missions.

  • Perseverance (Mar’s rover): $2.7 billion
  • Juno (Jupiter probe): $1.1 billion
  • Parker Solar probe: $ 1.5 billion
  • New Horizons (Pluto probe): $780 million

Those four monumental efforts combine to around 6 billion dollars, including the cost to buy their own launch vehicles. NASA could have done those missions again, three times over, for what right now is a massively sized, massively performant, and entirely earth-bound launch vehicle.

The picture isn’t getting any rosier. Money has been spent that is never coming back. We don’t need to send more after it. NASA is legally bound to the whims of Congress and the budget it passes. It’s time for Congress to unburden the agency of this albatross.

Starship Mark 8 Launch: A Most Successful Failure

Staged Combustion1 Comment

The most recent test of SpaceX’s voluminous Starship took place last week on Dec 9, the replay of which can be viewed here. Generally, had Starship been in diving competition, it would have scored a perfect ten for acrobatics and something rather lower for its landing.

After a seemingly successful ascent phase lasting around two minutes, Starship cut off first one engine and then shortly after a second. Following this, the vehicle appeared to nearly hover/slowly ascend, before cuttings its third and final engine just before performing its now patented belly flop maneuver. The following three minutes consisted of its descent, with a notable use of flaps that almost tempts the use of the word “flying.” The final, climatic event was the sudden firing of engines to abruptly, nearly violently, propel Starship into its vertical landing position. This maneuver appeared entirely successful but alas, the fuel header tanks lost pressure and thus the engines lost thrust, leading to an Starship explosion that would have been at home in your average Michael Bay film. Below are a few notes and thoughts on the launch.

Starship in “flight” (Credit SpaceX via Twitter)
  • The Raptor rocket engines, which are the only full-flow staged combustion engines to ever make it off the ground, performed admirably. This fact is a critical as anything else SpaceX tested today and are credit to the engineering prowess SpaceX flexes. Also, the exhaust plume is frankly art.
  • Many have commented on the green flames Raptor emitted just before the landing attempt. This is in fact not your typical TEA-TEB hypergolic (read: lights on fire by itself) fuel. Raptor uses spark ignition, not chemical, which many have speculated as a way to preserve its ability to restart multiple times. The green flame is this case is most likely the liquid oxygen reacting with engine components, some of which have copper ingredients, thus green flame. This is endearingly described as engine-rich combustion and is not usually considered as efficient as any-other-rich combustion.
  • Its difficult to feel a real-life scale for Starship while in flight, but this photo from last year’s Mark 1 rollout helps give an impression for the size of the vehicle performing maneuvers not far removed from a Russian ballet.
  • Next up for SpaceX is the launch of Mark 9, with similar goals as Mark 8, with hopefully a more intact vehicle at the end. First it will have to get off the ground, which is proving a challenge. It took a tumble in its shelter and appears to have bent its body and nose flaps. Whether that renders it to costly a repair remains to be seen, as Mark 10 is only weeks away from flight readiness as well.