http://www.ursamajortechnologies.com/#home"...manufacturer or turnkey propulsion solutions for a wide range of vehicles sized for servicing the micro- and nanosatellite launch community."I see at least one engineer from Blue Origin, and a few photos on their Instagram feed here: https://www.instagram.com/ursamajortechnologies/I'd be interested to hear more.
I wonder what companies they think will buy their engines. There are a lot of small-launcher start-ups these days, but it seems like they all build their own engines.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 10/04/2016 05:30 amI wonder what companies they think will buy their engines. There are a lot of small-launcher start-ups these days, but it seems like they all build their own engines.How many of those start-ups have had problems (and/or fallen by the wayside) due to various engine-related difficulties? If they can supply reliable, reasonably-priced engines in suitable sizes that perform well, perhaps more of the start-ups would be successful ... worth a try, I would think. :)
Quote from: kch on 10/04/2016 06:17 amQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 10/04/2016 05:30 amI wonder what companies they think will buy their engines. There are a lot of small-launcher start-ups these days, but it seems like they all build their own engines.How many of those start-ups have had problems (and/or fallen by the wayside) due to various engine-related difficulties? If they can supply reliable, reasonably-priced engines in suitable sizes that perform well, perhaps more of the start-ups would be successful ... worth a try, I would think. It also limits what a launch start-up can do because they have to build a launcher around an existing engine, and it limits how much differentiation the launch company can really have. It also means more levels of risk for Ursa Major: the risk they won't meet their technical goals, the risk no start-up launch company will materialize to buy it, and the risk that start-up will fail. It's more than the usual risk.It also means the engines will be less well-tuned to a particular launch design because the launcher and the engine aren't developed together.And it can make it harder for a start-up to gain funding if they say they'll use Ursa Major engines because then there's less differentiation the launch company can do -- other companies could pop up that also use the same Ursa Major engines. And the start-up will have more risks it can't control -- Ursa Major having technical failures or going out of business. And the interests of the engine manufacturer and rocket manufacturer won't be aligned.In a mature market, such as that for aircraft, a supply chain with multiple layers that separates the engine manufacturers from the airframe manufacturers can flourish, because there are multiple proven, stable suppliers at each level. It's less clear that can happen when the market (small satellite launch) hasn't even been proven yet.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 10/04/2016 05:30 amI wonder what companies they think will buy their engines. There are a lot of small-launcher start-ups these days, but it seems like they all build their own engines.How many of those start-ups have had problems (and/or fallen by the wayside) due to various engine-related difficulties? If they can supply reliable, reasonably-priced engines in suitable sizes that perform well, perhaps more of the start-ups would be successful ... worth a try, I would think.
According to a recent TRMO interview, Generation Orbit will be using Ursa Major engines for their launch vehicle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CZ5ixpz6f8#t=45m
ULA don't build their own engines, which gives them more options when developing new LVs. The ACES has option of 3 engines and give stage design maybe able switch engines in future without a total redesign. Vulcan is little different as there are 2 fuel option.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 10/04/2016 05:55 pmULA don't build their own engines, which gives them more options when developing new LVs. The ACES has option of 3 engines and give stage design maybe able switch engines in future without a total redesign. Vulcan is little different as there are 2 fuel option.I don't think they're planning on anything Vulcan sized, and while the whole team does have LOX/LH2 experience from their involvement in BE-3 development, I don't think that they're planning on throwing their hat into the ring for an ACES upper stage engine competitor. They're primarily focused on the smallsat launch market. Not stating anything final, it's not my company after all, but that doesn't seem like the market segment they're currently chasing.~Jon
The main engine of a spacecraft may be a large engine but its RCS can be medium sized. Using the same propellant can simplify the design of the vehicle.Start up are short of money and have a small time to market. An off the shelf engine reduces both.
Key publicly-available info worth mentioning:1- They're working on a 5klbf LOX/Kero staged combustion engine that is made from predominately 3D printed parts. This engine could be used in clusters for a booster engine, or more likely as an upper stage engine.
2- They're then planning to do a ~35klbf LOX/Kero or LOX/Methane engine, also leveraging 3D printing and staged combustion.
3- They just moved into a facility in Berthoud, Colorado that includes both design/fabrication, and colocated testing facilities. I got a tour about a week ago, and it's the kind of site I would've loved to have found back when I was thinking Altius was a rocket company.
4- Their team is primarily ex-Blue Origin engineers (a lot of core members of the BE-3 team), with several having worked at SpaceX on Merlin 1D before that. This team is sharp, and really seem to know what they're doing. Though the proof in that pudding will be in the testing...
Quote from: jongoff on 10/04/2016 05:04 amKey publicly-available info worth mentioning:1- They're working on a 5klbf LOX/Kero staged combustion engine that is made from predominately 3D printed parts. This engine could be used in clusters for a booster engine, or more likely as an upper stage engine.Interesting size as this is the level that John Whitehead's team at Lawrence Livermore reckoned it was a toss up between reciprocating pump fed and other engine types, mostly (IIRC) due to the complexity of small turbine design and mfg. What's tough for GG cycle engines is not going to be any easier for SC engines.
Quote2- They're then planning to do a ~35klbf LOX/Kero or LOX/Methane engine, also leveraging 3D printing and staged combustion.Another interesting size around the RL10. I'd say they would be angling for some ULA business but doesn't Blue (and possibly XCOR )already have a pretty solid relationship with them?LOX/Kero should be easier to be space storable than LH2 but that missions that need that capability. Then you have to be able to at least match that of LH2 at some level of chamber pressure and nozzle size.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 10/04/2016 05:30 amI wonder what companies they think will buy their engines. There are a lot of small-launcher start-ups these days, but it seems like they all build their own engines.There are a few smallsat launch companies not baselining internally developed propulsion, and those would be an obvious market for Ursa Major. The other market would be convincing bigger companies that their engines offer enough of a performance advantage compared to their solutions that it would be worth switching over to Ursa Major's design after they start flying.Being staged combustion, they're going to get better Isp than gas generator engines, and they'll likely beat electropumped engines on T/W ratio if you include the battery mass. A lot depends on what performance they hit, how much the engines cost, etc., but it's not unreasonable to think they could find a market for their engines.~Jon