Author Topic: ABL Space Systems: General Thread  (Read 142511 times)

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48471
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 82208
  • Likes Given: 37085
Re: ABL Space Systems: General Thread
« Reply #300 on: 11/06/2023 05:18 pm »
https://ablspacesystems.com/news/faa-closes-rs1-mishap-investigation/

Quote
FAA Closes RS1 Mishap Investigation
ABL

11.06.2023

EL SEGUNDO, Calif., Nov. 6, 2023 – The Federal Aviation Administration notified ABL Space Systems it has closed the mishap investigation into the Flight 1 anomaly of the RS1 launch vehicle that occurred on Jan. 10, 2023.

The mishap occurred 10.93 seconds after liftoff, when a fire in the aft cavity damaged key harnesses and triggered a complete loss of power. All engines shut down simultaneously as engine valves de-energized and terminated thrust, causing the vehicle to impact and detonate on the launch pad at the Pacific Spaceport Complex in Kodiak, Alaska. The source of the fire is attributed to an overly restrictive launch mount and flame deflector that created plume recirculation, overloading RS1’s base heat shield.

ABL has identified 22 corrective actions to prevent future mishaps from repeating. Action items include redesign of the launch mount and flame deflector, hardened closeouts and harnesses, and additional risk mitigation activities. ABL must implement all corrective actions that impact public safety and receive concurrence from the FAA that all safety and other applicable regulatory requirements have been satisfied before resuming any launch activities.

ABL led the mishap investigation with oversight from the FAA.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48471
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 82208
  • Likes Given: 37085
Re: ABL Space Systems: General Thread
« Reply #301 on: 12/08/2023 05:02 pm »

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48471
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 82208
  • Likes Given: 37085
Re: ABL Space Systems: General Thread
« Reply #302 on: 12/19/2023 06:32 pm »
https://twitter.com/ablspacesystems/status/1737181278766838111

Quote
How GS0 can impact the global future of launch

https://blog.ablspacesystems.com/p/the-global-future-of-launch

Quote
The Global Future of Launch
Planes can fly from runways, roads and ship decks. It's time for space launch to follow.

DAN PIEMONT AND HARRY O'HANLEY
19 DEC 2023

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2853
  • Liked: 1093
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: ABL Space Systems: General Thread
« Reply #303 on: 12/19/2023 09:14 pm »
The no TEL approach (the reaction frame/launch mount appear to rotate from horizontal to vertical by gripping the engines?) means the structure is pretty beefy to sustain the weight of a payload hanging on the end. Which makes sense since there doesn't appear to be a shelter for the thing, aside from the container it came packaged in, but that structural weight is a nontrivial penalty.

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11791
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 9414
  • Likes Given: 8103
Re: ABL Space Systems: General Thread
« Reply #304 on: 12/19/2023 09:28 pm »
Although depicted in this picture the LV exhaust would be diverted outward from the top of the deck (Red arrow) instead of through it (if it were an oil platform or derrick), would the pressure of the thrust cause the ship to push downward (blue arrow) on this end and cause the LV to tilt just at lift-off?  Or the ship will itself be pushed forward (Yellow Arrow) by the thrust directed outward (Red Arrow)?  (I can't tilt the arrows precisely in the direction to match my intentions - but you get the idea).
« Last Edit: 12/19/2023 09:33 pm by catdlr »
It's Tony De La Rosa, ...I don't create this stuff, I just report it.

Offline xyv

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 228
  • South of Vandenberg
  • Liked: 511
  • Likes Given: 96
Re: ABL Space Systems: General Thread
« Reply #305 on: 12/20/2023 01:10 am »
Blue arrow is backwards (slightly) - the launch mount is lightened by the thrust and the exhaust pushes down but with way less efficiency than the upward directed launch force.  I would think any concept of a water launch would incorporate active stabilization thrusters to control the platform agains all anticipated disturbances.

Offline Exastro

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 172
  • USA
  • Liked: 142
  • Likes Given: 101
Re: ABL Space Systems: General Thread
« Reply #306 on: 12/20/2023 01:48 am »
Although depicted in this picture the LV exhaust would be diverted outward from the top of the deck (Red arrow) instead of through it (if it were an oil platform or derrick), would the pressure of the thrust cause the ship to push downward (blue arrow) on this end and cause the LV to tilt just at lift-off?  Or the ship will itself be pushed forward (Yellow Arrow) by the thrust directed outward (Red Arrow)?  (I can't tilt the arrows precisely in the direction to match my intentions - but you get the idea).

I'll take a crack at this one.

For an expendable LV the TWR is typically 1.2, so the total force exerted by the jet on the ship at liftoff should be 1.2 times the GLOW.  However, at the same time the actual weight of the vehicle is removed.  So the downward force on the ship should rise by about  0.2 times the GLOW. 

You can estimate how much the ship should move downward from its surface area.  I'd guess the ship is something like 40x40 m square (the rocket is 27m tall for reference).  So the buoyancy force is something like 1600m^2 x 1000*kg/m^3 * 10*m/s^2 = 1.5e7 N/m.  The first stage's thrust is about 0.5 MN, and dividing that by 1.5e7 N/m and multiplying by (TWR-1) gives about 6 mm of vertical displacement of the ship.

If we assume that the thrust is deflected from vertical to horizontal velocity with perfect efficiency, that 0.5 MN effectively propels the ship.  If I make a wild guess that the mass of the ship is 1000 tonnes, and neglecting drag, the ship accelerates at 0.05 gee.

« Last Edit: 12/20/2023 01:50 am by Exastro »

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48471
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 82208
  • Likes Given: 37085
Re: ABL Space Systems: General Thread
« Reply #307 on: 12/28/2023 04:26 pm »

Offline ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
  • Liked: 506
  • Likes Given: 98
Re: ABL Space Systems: General Thread
« Reply #308 on: 01/20/2024 09:19 am »
ABL is raising more money, $100m, of which only $40m has closed:-



Source: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1807044/000095017223000191/xslFormDX01/primary_doc.xml

Several comments:

Firstly, this means they have burned thru (or are close to burning thru) the last $200m raise about 2 years ago (end 2021).

Secondly, its a small amount - and not the complete round - and according to the filing they didn't use an advisor, so it is probably internal bridging money until the next launch.

Thirdly, valuation is not known, but they have tried to keep the raise quiet so it may be what VCs call a "down" round given their lofty $2.4B valuation in 2021 and the state of the market given the performance of the SPAC companies like Astra, Virgin Orbit etc. The filing at SEC says it is equity or options/warrants, and not convertible debt, so they locked in a valuation in the round.

Fourthly, they are 6+ years into their development (founded August 2017), which puts them on track for orbital success in the next approx. 2 years. For a good comparison, Firefly Space Systems, the predecessor to Firefly Aerospace, was founded in November 2014, with a 1 year hiatus for bankruptcy, law suits etc. in 2016-17, so about 8 years at full steam to successfully get to orbit, in September 2023.
 
Lastly, they have raised a little more than $400m to date, which is still not enough for a 1,000kg SSO launcher. For comparison, Firefly raised $300m last year alone, and about $550m since Maxym Polyakov was ousted by CFIUS. Polyakov invested around $200m prior to this exit, and P.J. King, Tom Markusic and Mike Blum raised about $70-$75m prior to this, for a total to date of $825m (not including any revenue from the various NASA / DoD contracts, which by now will not be insignificant). So on that metric ABL are about halfway through fundraising.

There´s a lot riding on the next launch attempt. Harry O'Hanley's dad Ronnie being CEO and Chair of State Street (https://www.statestreet.com/fr/en/asset-manager/about/our-people/leaderships/ronaldohanley)has probably helped them find money, but the market is the market. Another early failure, with Firefly surging ahead, and the specter of what happened to Virgin Orbit lurking in the background, may create some issues.

On a slightly lighter tone, never call your launcher / spaceplane company "XXX Space Systems", it's tempting fate. Firefly Space Systems, Swiss Space Systems, Vector Space Systems, Masten Space Systems, Smallspark Space Systems....

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10233
  • US
  • Liked: 13943
  • Likes Given: 5973
Re: ABL Space Systems: General Thread
« Reply #309 on: 01/20/2024 02:39 pm »
I'm not sure money raised by Firefly last year has that much relevance in the comparison, Firefly has had a lot of other stuff in development that can be expected to cost more than their first vehicle.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1