Ursa Major Technologies

[Stan-1967]

I guess they could be thinking of liquid side boosters (maybe even flyback boosters), but for comparison the GEM 63XL has just over 2MN of thrust, putting it much closer to BE-4 than Arroway. Of course, there are other significant differences between solid rocket boosters and liquid side boosters, IANARS so I can't speculate, but Arroway doesn't seem particularly suited to this role either.

If ULA wanted to pursue reusable LRB's to replace the GEM 63XL's a compelling case may exist for engines in the Hadley class.  Imagine a Hadley  based LRB with maybe 4 engines per booster, and each carrying around 100t of propellant.  The dry mass should be comparable to a F9 upper stage, with some additional mass for the thrust structure, so maybe dry mass is 6.5t depending on the T/W or the Hadley.  That booster under a parachute could possibly be recovered mid-air like with the SMART concept.  ULA has already done the legwork for the SMART idea, so why not extend it to the side boosters?

[zubenelgenubi]

Moderator:
Remember to delete the Tapatalk tag when you post. Thanks.

[TrevorMonty]

Who are they building Arroway for and why is DoD funding it. Only potential customer I can think of is ULA and follow on RLV to Vulcan.

Arroway is around 1/3 the thrust of BE-4 (890kN vs. 2.45MN). So unless a Vulcan follow-up wants to move from two large engines to nine small ones (to facilitate first-stage recovery?), I don't see the point.

It's kind of unfortunate for Ursa Major, Arroway happens to be almost the same size as Aeon R, Archimedes, Miranda, and Prometheus. I imagine that Rocket Lab at least would have considered outsourcing the engines if they were commercially available, but they're coming online too late for Neutron.

They must have customer to justify development cost of this engine.
For ULA it would need to be new RLV but don't assume another F9R clone. There were slides of LV with 2 engine pods attached to a booster tank.

Show me those slides. I’ve seen this idea hinted at as an idea by someone not at ULA, but I didn’t know ULA was looking at it. It would be very good news!

Found it on ULA webpage under About/papers &presentations/Evolution/AAIA Space 2016.

[Robotbeat]

Who are they building Arroway for and why is DoD funding it. Only potential customer I can think of is ULA and follow on RLV to Vulcan.

Arroway is around 1/3 the thrust of BE-4 (890kN vs. 2.45MN). So unless a Vulcan follow-up wants to move from two large engines to nine small ones (to facilitate first-stage recovery?), I don't see the point.

It's kind of unfortunate for Ursa Major, Arroway happens to be almost the same size as Aeon R, Archimedes, Miranda, and Prometheus. I imagine that Rocket Lab at least would have considered outsourcing the engines if they were commercially available, but they're coming online too late for Neutron.

They must have customer to justify development cost of this engine.
For ULA it would need to be new RLV but don't assume another F9R clone. There were slides of LV with 2 engine pods attached to a booster tank.

Show me those slides. I’ve seen this idea hinted at as an idea by someone not at ULA, but I didn’t know ULA was looking at it. It would be very good news!

Found it on ULA webpage under About/papers &presentations/Evolution/AAIA Space 2016.

oh, shoot. That’s just recovering the engines. The tank would still be expended. That’s too bad as the tank (and integration with the engines) is like almost half the cost.  I thought it was for whole stage recovery

[TrevorMonty]

Who are they building Arroway for and why is DoD funding it. Only potential customer I can think of is ULA and follow on RLV to Vulcan.

Arroway is around 1/3 the thrust of BE-4 (890kN vs. 2.45MN). So unless a Vulcan follow-up wants to move from two large engines to nine small ones (to facilitate first-stage recovery?), I don't see the point.

It's kind of unfortunate for Ursa Major, Arroway happens to be almost the same size as Aeon R, Archimedes, Miranda, and Prometheus. I imagine that Rocket Lab at least would have considered outsourcing the engines if they were commercially available, but they're coming online too late for Neutron.

They must have customer to justify development cost of this engine.
For ULA it would need to be new RLV but don't assume another F9R clone. There were slides of LV with 2 engine pods attached to a booster tank.

Show me those slides. I’ve seen this idea hinted at as an idea by someone not at ULA, but I didn’t know ULA was looking at it. It would be very good news!

Found it on ULA webpage under About/papers &presentations/Evolution/AAIA Space 2016.

oh, shoot. That’s just recovering the engines. The tank would still be expended. That’s too bad as the tank (and integration with the engines) is like almost half the cost.  I thought it was for whole stage recovery

They could fly whole lot back as single item and land it for low performance missions. Expend core on high performance missions.

ABL could be Arroway's customer. They did hint at building larger LV.

[JEF_300]

ABL could be Arroway's customer. They did hint at building larger LV.

Now there's an idea. Medium & Methane is definitely the path forward all their peers are taking. I wonder if Lockheed Martin would be ok with bundling some of their 56 contracted launches with ABL into fewer launches on a medium-class vehicle?

[Robotbeat]

AIR FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY SELECTS LEADING U.S. ROCKET PROPULSION COMPANY URSA MAJOR TO PROVIDE HYPERSONICS AND SPACE LAUNCH CAPABILITIES:
https://www.ursamajor.com/media/press-release/air-force-research-laboratory-selects-leading-ursa-major-for-hypersonics-and-launch-capabilities?utm_source=social&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=ongoing

"Contract funds development of storable “Draper” engine for hypersonic defense and 200,000-pound thrust “Arroway” engine as an RD-series replacement
DENVER - May 18, 2023 - Ursa Major, America's leading privately funded company focused solely on rocket propulsion, today announced a contract with the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) to advance U.S. hypersonics defense programs and space launch capabilities. 

Under the contract, Ursa Major will build and test a prototype of its new Draper engine for hypersonics, and further develop its 200,000-pound thrust Arroway engine for space launch.

“Ursa Major continues to be an important partner to AFRL as we build hypersonics capabilities and remove America’s dependence on foreign propulsion systems for launch,” said Shawn Phillips, Chief of AFRL’s Rocket Propulsion Division.

About Draper

The Draper engine is a 4,000-pound-thrust closed cycle hydrogen peroxide engine designed for hypersonic applications. Because its propellant is storable, the engine can provide rapid-response capabilities. Ursa Major will also build a dedicated test stand for Draper and plans to hotfire the engine within 12 months.

The United States faces a gap in hypersonic capabilities, and Draper will help to address this, bearing storable characteristics of a solid motor but with the higher performance and maneuverability of a liquid engine. Those qualities allow it to better simulate hypersonic threats as a target vehicle.

“Draper will become the foundation of America’s counter-hypersonic capabilities,” said Joe Laurienti, founder and CEO of Ursa Major. “Its on-demand launch capability and increased maneuverability make it an ideal hypersonic interceptor and allow it to better simulate hypersonic threats as a target vehicle.”

Applicable for both space access and hypersonic applications, the Draper engine aligns with AFRL's efforts in enhancing technical capabilities to deliver assets rapidly and effectively to “high-energy orbits" or "military-relevant orbits." Draper’s safe handling and storability leads to applications and maturation of responsive launch operations, including, point-to-point delivery, quick mission planning, on-orbit servicing, fuel depots, global range and mobility, hypersonic systems, and survivable and responsive launches. Learn more about Draper here.

About Arroway

Arroway is a reusable liquid oxygen and methane staged combustion engine for medium and heavy launch vehicles, expected to hotfire in 2025. Introduced in August 2022, Arroway, when clustered together, will be one of very few commercially available American engines capable of supporting next-generation heavy launch.

Ursa Major designs, tests, and manufactures its engines from its state-of-the-art facility in Berthoud, Colorado, using market-leading technology in analysis and simulation, 3D printing, and proprietary alloys. Its customers get to launch many years faster, without the development cost of building engines in-house.

Last August, Ursa Major and AFRL announced a contract under the U.S. Air Force Tactical Funding Increase (TACFI) program to qualify the 5,000-pound thrust, oxygen-rich staged combustion “Hadley” rocket engine for future Department of Defense missions."

https://www.ursamajor.com/engines/draper

If you think about it, this is an obvious step for a more cost-effective hypersonic boost-glide weapon or prompt-global-strike. Those things are like $50 million apiece. How much is an Astra or Rocketlab Electron price? Just $2.5 million and $7.5 million, respectively. The only problem is they're not storable.

Draper solves that problem. Draper is around the same thrust as Rutherford and should have pretty decent performance as it's closed cycle.

A potential 10x difference in price is pretty astounding for a weapons system. I think the Air Force is willing to deal with the vagaries of liquids if they get this kind of deal.

And it could potentially be better than that, even. Astra once claimed they could get down to $1 million per launch. That's cheaper than a Tomahawk missile. Except you can just launch from the continental US or whatever and don't even need the ship!

Draper could also be used in just a single-stage hypersonic booster. My WAG for cost is probably something below $300,000 per engine, perhaps much less than that at high scale. Could be cheaper than theater ballistic missiles like the HIMARS ATACMS, plus faster (hypersonic) and lighter for a given payload and more maneuverable.

I've long thought the inevitable end result for the cheap, expendable smallsat launch paradigm was munitions. Here we are.

[JEF_300]

If you think about it, this is an obvious step for a more cost-effective hypersonic boost-glide weapon or prompt-global-strike. Those things are like $50 million apiece. How much is an Astra or Rocketlab Electron price? Just $2.5 million and $7.5 million, respectively. The only problem is they're not storable.

Draper solves that problem. Draper is around the same thrust as Rutherford and should have pretty decent performance as it's closed cycle.

A potential 10x difference in price is pretty astounding for a weapons system. I think the Air Force is willing to deal with the vagaries of liquids if they get this kind of deal.

And it could potentially be better than that, even. Astra once claimed they could get down to $1 million per launch. That's cheaper than a Tomahawk missile. Except you can just launch from the continental US or whatever and don't even need the ship!

Draper could also be used in just a single-stage hypersonic booster. My WAG for cost is probably something below $300,000 per engine, perhaps much less than that at high scale. Could be cheaper than theater ballistic missiles like the HIMARS ATACMS, plus faster (hypersonic) and lighter for a given payload and more maneuverable.

I've long thought the inevitable end result for the cheap, expendable smallsat launch paradigm was munitions. Here we are.

I 100% agree. I think that it's probably possible to develop a solid motor that can far out-compete these small commercial liquid boosters, but there's probably a billion dollars of development cost between here and there, so why bother? Just tap into that readily available liquid experience.

Do we have any idea how much of the cost of boost-glide hypersonic missiles is driven by the glide vehicle, rather than the booster? That should give us a better idea of mow much saving potential there is here.

[greybeardengineer]

If you think about it, this is an obvious step for a more cost-effective hypersonic boost-glide weapon or prompt-global-strike. Those things are like $50 million apiece. How much is an Astra or Rocketlab Electron price? Just $2.5 million and $7.5 million, respectively. The only problem is they're not storable.

Draper solves that problem. Draper is around the same thrust as Rutherford and should have pretty decent performance as it's closed cycle.

A potential 10x difference in price is pretty astounding for a weapons system. I think the Air Force is willing to deal with the vagaries of liquids if they get this kind of deal.

And it could potentially be better than that, even. Astra once claimed they could get down to $1 million per launch. That's cheaper than a Tomahawk missile. Except you can just launch from the continental US or whatever and don't even need the ship!

Draper could also be used in just a single-stage hypersonic booster. My WAG for cost is probably something below $300,000 per engine, perhaps much less than that at high scale. Could be cheaper than theater ballistic missiles like the HIMARS ATACMS, plus faster (hypersonic) and lighter for a given payload and more maneuverable.

I've long thought the inevitable end result for the cheap, expendable smallsat launch paradigm was munitions. Here we are.

I 100% agree. I think that it's probably possible to develop a solid motor that can far out-compete these small commercial liquid boosters, but there's probably a billion dollars of development cost between here and there, so why bother? Just tap into that readily available liquid experience.

It is not just NRE, it is unit cost too. LOX is far cheaper than ammonium perchlorate. Pouring LOX into a tank is effortless compared to careful mixing, setting, curing of solid propellant. The liquid propellant loads into the tank just fine. Solid rocket motors have to be carefully vetted by non-destructive means like x-ray and ultrasound to guard against catastrophic defects. A SRM is heavy and has to be moved and stored like a giant munition. All these extra steps and special treatments are expensive.

Solids have their place - ready to launch at a moments notice after years of storage and wide range of TWR. Great stuff for missiles! Space launch is concerned with $ and $ per unit impulse and commonly used bulk liquid propellants can't be beat. No one has competed successfully with solids except for extremely niche applications like small sounding rockets or with heavy cross subsidization with parallel missile programs. With LRE development and manufacturing technology and know how spreading, liquid propulsion is threatening remaining non-military SRM applications more than the other way around.

[Robotbeat]

But what is cheaper, hydrogen peroxide or solid propellant? The Draper engine uses storable hydrogen peroxide.

[trimeta]

But what is cheaper, hydrogen peroxide or solid propellant? The Draper engine uses storable hydrogen peroxide.

I think the comparison was about replacing SRBs used as side boosters with liquid boosters using the Arroway engine (which may make more sense than I initially gave it credit for). Draper seems to be intended for hypersonic interceptors (and possibly, the hypersonic missiles themselves) where the need for variable throttlability makes solids much more difficult to work with in general.

[trimeta]

I just had a crazy thought: we know that Vector Launch (one of the two companies which Ship-Of-Theseus'd out of the original Vector Space Systems) is a customer of Ursa Major's, but unlike their sister company Phantom Space, they refuse to talk about whether they're going to orbit anymore. Instead, they talk about how they're supporting national security missions with a mobile launch platform that can be operated in hostile environments. While they've explicitly said they're using Hadley in the past, I wonder if they're actually working with Draper, and just mislabeled it because Draper wasn't officially announced (and Draper is based on Hadley).

[Steven Pietrobon]

HTP has been used in supersonic (although not hypersonic) missiles, notably the British Blue Steel missile.

https://www.keymilitary.com/article/weapons-war-blue-steel-nuclear-missile