Author Topic: ABL Space Systems: General Thread  (Read 141161 times)

Offline vaporcobra

Good find.  I think this is a team that looks pretty good – they've done real things, so good luck to them.  But the vehicle concept looks way too vanilla for my taste, and too small.

The engines are ORSC! That's hardly vanilla for a startup. You have to start somewhere. By starting small means they might actually achieve launch. Launch price is about $14M for 650 to 900 kg, depending on orbit.

But it is Ursa making the engines and they’ve both been at it a while and have functioning engines on the stand. I’ve been to visit them and came away impressed.

They're already building full-scale Ripley test hardware and appear to be no more than 3-6 months away from beginning a static fire campaign, too.

Offline TrevorMonty

This will be 3rd LV in 1000kg class, along with Firefly (1000kg) and Relativity (1200kg). Quite useful size vehicle, can do multiple smallsats to LEO and SSO, plus interplanetary smallsat missions and small lunar landers.


Offline slatts04

  • Member
  • Posts: 1
  • United States
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
https://www.ablspacesystems.com/

Scrolling through... looks like they've totally changed their engine plans. No longer lists Ursa as the supplier. Now some gas-generator engines named E1 and E2.

The only thing which makes me think these engines aren't in-house is that they've had zero job postings for propulsion analysis/design, aside from systems level stuff. The drawings shown on their website, meanwhile, look pretty high fidelity. Anyone recognize those sketches?

Offline vaporcobra

https://www.ablspacesystems.com/

Scrolling through... looks like they've totally changed their engine plans. No longer lists Ursa as the supplier. Now some gas-generator engines named E1 and E2.

The only thing which makes me think these engines aren't in-house is that they've had zero job postings for propulsion analysis/design, aside from systems level stuff. The drawings shown on their website, meanwhile, look pretty high fidelity. Anyone recognize those sketches?

I just noticed the same thing last night, Ursa is no longer mentioned anywhere. Archive.org shows that Ursa was a feature no later than August 29 2018, which might help explain the 6+ month delay for the payload user guide's release, which was previously supposed to occur in Q2 2018. Expect all other schedule items to slip commensurately, esp if they have pivoted to designing and building two entirely new 10,000-40,000 lbf thrust engines from scratch.

Offline ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
  • Liked: 506
  • Likes Given: 97
Scrolling through... looks like they've totally changed their engine plans. No longer lists Ursa as the supplier. Now some gas-generator engines named E1 and E2.

That has changed in the last few days. I recall it said Ursa a week ago when I first posted it, and as late as August it still said Ursa Ripley etc (https://web.archive.org/web/20180829110127/https://www.ablspacesystems.com/).

Now it says:-

"Designed and manufactured in-house, ABL's E1 and E2 engines leverage modern additive manufacturing while using the reliable gas generator cycle and proven production techniques to achieve a revolutionary low cost.
E1 Boost
42,000 lbf thrust (sl)
E2 Vacuum
13,000 lbf thrust (vac)
Propellants
LOX / RP-1
Propellant Feed
Turbopump
Combustion Cycle
Gas generator cycle"



And they have printed the E2 version (image name is "...e2_print"!):-



That must be a blow to Ursa.

Hmm. They are clearly making a lowest cost rapid prototyype - this image pictured is quite obviously a large tube mockup:-



But this image is more like an early series of tank prototypes, where they bend metal and then move to 3 x 120 degree isogrids welded toegther:-



This image reveals the two launch sites being planned:



They look like a very fast moving competitor to Vector and Firefly. Low tech, fast pace. Firefly has a head start of some years, esp. since we don't see any engines firing. But this looks like a way to rapidly catchup.

Vector better watch out - launching to 3km in early 2019 will look like amateur hour if ABL can stick anything close to this timeline:-

Online Gliderflyer

Very interesting. Looking at the render posted of E2, there are no apparent valves between the pump and chamber/injector. I bet they are going to try using a pintle with face shutoff; interesting choice considering pintles are relatively inefficient and they don't appear to need the deep throttling capability. The turbine exhaust also appears to be ducted into the nozzle extension.

I wonder what drove them away from Ursa Major?
I tried it at home

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1710
  • Liked: 2214
  • Likes Given: 662
Very interesting. Looking at the render posted of E2, there are no apparent valves between the pump and chamber/injector. I bet they are going to try using a pintle with face shutoff; interesting choice considering pintles are relatively inefficient and they don't appear to need the deep throttling capability. The turbine exhaust also appears to be ducted into the nozzle extension.

I wonder what drove them away from Ursa Major?

I'd hazard the guess that price per engine might have been the tipping point; Ursa seems to be making excellent technical progress so I doubt it was any technical concern.  Given that ABL has hired some Virgin people with propulsion experience, they may now feel comfortable developing powerplants of a type similar to Virgin Orbit's first or second stage in-house. 

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Very interesting. Looking at the render posted of E2, there are no apparent valves between the pump and chamber/injector. I bet they are going to try using a pintle with face shutoff; interesting choice considering pintles are relatively inefficient and they don't appear to need the deep throttling capability. The turbine exhaust also appears to be ducted into the nozzle extension.

I wonder what drove them away from Ursa Major?

I'd hazard the guess that price per engine might have been the tipping point; Ursa seems to be making excellent technical progress so I doubt it was any technical concern.  Given that ABL has hired some Virgin people with propulsion experience, they may now feel comfortable developing powerplants of a type similar to Virgin Orbit's first or second stage in-house. 

Them moving away from Ursa Major actually makes me less confident in their prospects for success, not more. Trying to develop two pump-fed engines quickly sounds like wishful thinking. But I wish them luck.

~Jon

Offline Tomness

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 660
  • Into the abyss will I run
  • Liked: 289
  • Likes Given: 737
Very interesting. Looking at the render posted of E2, there are no apparent valves between the pump and chamber/injector. I bet they are going to try using a pintle with face shutoff; interesting choice considering pintles are relatively inefficient and they don't appear to need the deep throttling capability. The turbine exhaust also appears to be ducted into the nozzle extension.

I wonder what drove them away from Ursa Major?

I'd hazard the guess that price per engine might have been the tipping point; Ursa seems to be making excellent technical progress so I doubt it was any technical concern.  Given that ABL has hired some Virgin people with propulsion experience, they may now feel comfortable developing powerplants of a type similar to Virgin Orbit's first or second stage in-house. 

Them moving away from Ursa Major actually makes me less confident in their prospects for success, not more. Trying to develop two pump-fed engines quickly sounds like wishful thinking. But I wish them luck.

~Jon

No joke, that worked out well for Firefly. They got their pants sued off.

Offline pipernine

  • Member
  • Posts: 2
  • San Mateo, CA
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
So it looks like they posted a payload users guide at some point. See https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/abl-media/rs1_payload_users_guide_v1.pdf

Not sure when the website was updated with it, but noticed it tonight when I was scrolling through the front page.

Quite a lot of interesting stuff in here -- way more than we've known thus far.

Offline TrevorMonty

The 1000-1500kg LV market is becoming very competitive, I count 5 serious contenders. Firefly, Relativity, Boeing XS1, ABL and PLD of Spain.

Firefly seems to be leading one with launch  next year.

Offline josespeck

  • Member
  • Posts: 60
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 13
The 1000-1500kg LV market is becoming very competitive, I count 5 serious contenders. Firefly, Relativity, Boeing XS1, ABL and PLD of Spain.

Firefly seems to be leading one with launch  next year.

PLD Space Miura5 will place 300 kg. Unless they raise their capacity again.

Offline Mardlamock

  • Member
  • Posts: 20
  • Never gonna let you down
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 8
The 1000-1500kg LV market is becoming very competitive, I count 5 serious contenders. Firefly, Relativity, Boeing XS1, ABL and PLD of Spain.

Firefly seems to be leading one with launch  next year.

XS1 is probably not flying, PLD is not in the same market, so that only leaves Firefly and Relativity with a chance.

If they can sustain their company with just 5 launches p.a, they should be able to get in. Problem is getting funding.
"And I heard, as it were, the noise of thunder"

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Liked: 4572
  • Likes Given: 5136
So it looks like they posted a payload users guide at some point. See https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/abl-media/rs1_payload_users_guide_v1.pdf

Not sure when the website was updated with it, but noticed it tonight when I was scrolling through the front page.

Quite a lot of interesting stuff in here -- way more than we've known thus far.

Is it too picky to complain about rocket specs in Imperial units?
T-0.00 is called "Missile Lift Off"
Isn't staging t 3.1 km/sec rather a low velocity?
I think that shows up in the 3.5 g limit for the second stage vs the ~5.8 g limit for the first stage. (Fig 10)
"Proprietary Skirt Extension Architecture" on the second stage.  Sounds overly complicated vs a longer interstage.
Figure 7 looks like the exterior dimensions, not the usable dynamic envelope.  ("All dimensions in inches"  >:( )
Can we assume that the "Qualified Autonomous Flight Termination System" extends from the second stage, where it is shown, to the first stage?  SpaceX was not allowed to launch from Vandenberg with just "Thrust Termination Capability". and hasn't gone back to it, even after 60+ launches.
The "Cubesat Late Load Access Doors" in the Cubesat Bay is pretty interesting.  It doesn't look optional, that is, all missions seem to have to carry this.
Customers have to report their spacecraft mass in pounds, but cubesats can be in kilograms. ::)
"The customer must provide all licensing data required for both launch (FAA) and orbit (FCC)."  Not going to let other's bad history repeat. 8)
I like the aerial photo of the Camden GA site. Looks like some big pads where old buildings were scraped off.
The back tires on the "Transporter Erector" are almost right under the rocket, and don't appear to be shielded.  And the rocket is REALLY close to the ground. :o   Hopefully, we will see about those details.
And goodness, Figure 17 looks an awful lot like some Russian mobile missile systems.
They are going to start propellant load at T-20:30, right out of the SpaceX handbook, only faster.
I do wish them luck. ;D


What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39215
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32735
  • Likes Given: 8178
Isn't staging t 3.1 km/sec rather a low velocity?

No. The Saturn V staged at 2.7 km/s inertial.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Liked: 4572
  • Likes Given: 5136
Isn't staging t 3.1 km/sec rather a low velocity?

No. The Saturn V staged at 2.7 km/s inertial.
But Saturn V was a three stage rocket.
(With LOX-LH2 upper stages)
Totally different optimization
At what velocities do the Falcon 9 and Electron stage?  (Both of them are 2 stage, LOX, RP-1, also.)
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39215
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32735
  • Likes Given: 8178
At what velocities do the Falcon 9 and Electron stage?  (Both of them are 2 stage, LOX, RP-1, also.)

Falcon 9 is 2.3 km/s Earth relative (2.7 km/s inertial).
« Last Edit: 01/29/2019 09:08 am by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Online Solarsail

  • Member
  • Posts: 57
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 7
https://spacenews.com/abl-space-systems-increases-performance-and-cuts-price-of-its-small-launch-vehicle/

This seems to have some of ABL's reasoning on parting ways with Ursa Major, and engine development.

Offline PM3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1481
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1840
  • Likes Given: 1300
Lockheed Martin is betting on ABL.

ABL Space Systems Receives Lockheed Martin Strategic Investment

Quote
Proceeds from the financing will be used to advance ABL's development and test program, including a planned integrated stage test in the second half of 2019. ABL is planning a first launch of RS1 in 2020.
"Never, never be afraid of the truth." -- Jim Bridenstine

Offline TrevorMonty

Still only small company with staff of 25. While they may achieve first test launch by end of 2020, ramping up from there to volume launches is going to take huge injection of capital and staff. Just look at RL staff grow over last few years, now at 500 and growing.

Up till now I doubt Firefly and Relativity thought of ABL as serious competitor. LM investment will change that. Especially as LM know a thing or two about launch industry plus being early investor in RL shows they can pick a winner.
« Last Edit: 07/23/2019 10:20 am by TrevorMonty »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0