ABL Space Systems: General Thread

[gongora]

0065-EX-ST-2021
permit application for launch communications, NET mid-April

edit:  their old application said 500km SSO, this new one says 200x500km retrograde

[trimeta]

Lockheed Martin have officially announced that they're partnering with ABL Space Systems to launch out of Shetland Space Centre. Not really a huge surprise if you've been following along: it was known that Lockmart was in talks with both ABL and Rocket Lab, but as recently as the NSF interview with Peter Beck on January 23rd of this year, Beck was very skeptical about adding any more launch sites beyond LC-1A, LC-1B, and LC-2. And it was also previously reported that Lockheed Martin had shifted their focus from Space Hub Sutherland to Shetland Space Centre. But still, with ABL as secretive as they are, we have to take whatever news we can.

The other notable news here is that this first launch from Shetland Space Centre has some payloads attached to it: a small orbital maneuvering vehicle built by Moog which can deploy up to six 6U Cubesats. Which is a little odd, since "having a set of isolated payload bays specifically designed for deploying 6U Cubesats" is one of ABL's signature features, but maybe Moog's maneuvering vehicle affords more orbital flexibility. It's also stated that this will be their fifth launch (approximately), and should happen in 2022. No update on their first launch, other than confirmation that it's scheduled for 2021Q2, which was already known from the (lack of) filings to launch in Q1.

Refs:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/02/abl-space-tapped-to-launch-the-first-orbital-rocket-from-britain/
https://spacenews.com/lockheed-martin-selects-abl-space-systems-for-uk-launch/

[bolun]

Lockheed Martin selects ABL rocket for Shetland launches

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-55948914

[Welsh Dragon]

ABL claims their RS1 can run on RP-1 *or* Jet-A. One assumes that all their performance numbers are based on RP-1, with the reduction from using Jet-A being something you discuss with them if you're talking about launching from a site without access to RP-1.

I'd think the liquid oxygen would be an bigger issue in that situation. Both can be trucked in of course, but Jet-A would be cheaper and easier to move.

[maosmiraculous]

ABL Space Systems signs customer for first launch

https://spacenews.com/abl-space-systems-signs-customer-for-first-launch/

[edzieba]

ABL claims their RS1 can run on RP-1 *or* Jet-A. One assumes that all their performance numbers are based on RP-1, with the reduction from using Jet-A being something you discuss with them if you're talking about launching from a site without access to RP-1.

I'd think the liquid oxygen would be an bigger issue in that situation. Both can be trucked in of course, but Jet-A would be cheaper and easier to move.

LOX is a common locally available commodity, as is regular aviation fuel. RP-1 is a specially refined Kerosene, which is not as commonly available. LOX or Jet-A are both commodities you can acquire in volume with a few hours notice, whereas RP-1 is not.

[russianhalo117]

ABL claims their RS1 can run on RP-1 *or* Jet-A. One assumes that all their performance numbers are based on RP-1, with the reduction from using Jet-A being something you discuss with them if you're talking about launching from a site without access to RP-1.

I'd think the liquid oxygen would be an bigger issue in that situation. Both can be trucked in of course, but Jet-A would be cheaper and easier to move.

LOX is a common locally available commodity, as is regular aviation fuel. RP-1 is a specially refined Kerosene, which is not as commonly available. LOX or Jet-A are both commodities you can acquire in volume with a few hours notice, whereas RP-1 is not.

Jet-A, B and several military and allied fuel types and grades are available at my someday going to be renamed international airport and GOX/LOX and other gasses is produced on site for all aircraft and medical use.

[Asteroza]

ABL claims their RS1 can run on RP-1 *or* Jet-A. One assumes that all their performance numbers are based on RP-1, with the reduction from using Jet-A being something you discuss with them if you're talking about launching from a site without access to RP-1.

I'd think the liquid oxygen would be an bigger issue in that situation. Both can be trucked in of course, but Jet-A would be cheaper and easier to move.

LOX is a common locally available commodity, as is regular aviation fuel. RP-1 is a specially refined Kerosene, which is not as commonly available. LOX or Jet-A are both commodities you can acquire in volume with a few hours notice, whereas RP-1 is not.

On a practical level, if you aren't using fuel cooling but rather LOx cooling, I suppose you might be able to work with Jet-A or similar rather than RP-1 with a slight performance hit...

But from what I understand, LOx cooling is generally available only on engines with russian metallurgy heritage...

[russianhalo117]

ABL claims their RS1 can run on RP-1 *or* Jet-A. One assumes that all their performance numbers are based on RP-1, with the reduction from using Jet-A being something you discuss with them if you're talking about launching from a site without access to RP-1.

I'd think the liquid oxygen would be an bigger issue in that situation. Both can be trucked in of course, but Jet-A would be cheaper and easier to move.

LOX is a common locally available commodity, as is regular aviation fuel. RP-1 is a specially refined Kerosene, which is not as commonly available. LOX or Jet-A are both commodities you can acquire in volume with a few hours notice, whereas RP-1 is not.

On a practical level, if you aren't using fuel cooling but rather LOx cooling, I suppose you might be able to work with Jet-A or similar rather than RP-1 with a slight performance hit...

But from what I understand, LOx cooling is generally available only on engines with russian metallurgy heritage...

GOX/LOX in the traditional airport/airbase environment is mainly used for breathing and/or emergency depending upon the nature of the aircraft LOX is turned into GOX using either a tap off a engine or via a heat exchanger and is breathed by the occupants. LOX cooling for American and European engine uses is progressing in projects but Russian the only ones in productions

[JEF_300]

On a practical level, if you aren't using fuel cooling but rather LOx cooling, I suppose you might be able to work with Jet-A or similar rather than RP-1 with a slight performance hit...

But from what I understand, LOx cooling is generally available only on engines with russian metallurgy heritage...

GOX/LOX in the traditional airport/airbase environment is mainly used for breathing and/or emergency depending upon the nature of the aircraft LOX is turned into GOX using either a tap off a engine or via a heat exchanger and is breathed by the occupants. LOX cooling for American and European engine uses is progressing in projects but Russian the only ones in productions

Yep. Notably, Launcher Space is doing good work on this.

[HMXHMX]

ABL claims their RS1 can run on RP-1 *or* Jet-A. One assumes that all their performance numbers are based on RP-1, with the reduction from using Jet-A being something you discuss with them if you're talking about launching from a site without access to RP-1.

I'd think the liquid oxygen would be an bigger issue in that situation. Both can be trucked in of course, but Jet-A would be cheaper and easier to move.

LOX is a common locally available commodity, as is regular aviation fuel. RP-1 is a specially refined Kerosene, which is not as commonly available. LOX or Jet-A are both commodities you can acquire in volume with a few hours notice, whereas RP-1 is not.

On a practical level, if you aren't using fuel cooling but rather LOx cooling, I suppose you might be able to work with Jet-A or similar rather than RP-1 with a slight performance hit...

But from what I understand, LOx cooling is generally available only on engines with russian metallurgy heritage...

My propulsion team at Rotary Rocket was operating LOX-cooled engines (designed for a 2400 PSIA Pc) more than 20 years ago.  Fired the same chamber dozens of time, always with Jet A.  No problem.

[moddedLimes]

0065-EX-ST-2021
permit application for launch communications, NET mid-April

edit:  their old application said 500km SSO, this new one says 200x500km retrograde

Looks like their application got denied again. https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=268663&x=.

Sounds like they still have not summitted their orbital debris assessment report (ODAR)

I am somehow doubting that this is still within their critical path, so maybe they'll be launching Q3?

[moddedLimes]

Anyone else notice that ABL wasn't mentioned in the State of Vandenberg video?

I saw this post mention the video: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53257.msg2200953#msg2200953

[trimeta]

ABL closed another funding round, pulling in $170 million with a valuation of $1.3 billion. No more specifics about when they first intend to launch other than "later this year" (so much for the hope they might launch in Q2), but they did claim that total expenditures so far have been "well under" $50 million, and that this additional funding was not necessary to get them to first launch (instead, it will help for "scaling up launch cadence to meet all the demand we are seeing in 2022 and beyond"). If true, that should at least give some confidence that they'll survive long enough to attempt a couple of flights.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/25/abl-space-raises-170m-from-t-rowe-fidelity-at-1point3-billion-valuation.html

[ParabolicSnark]

Dan Piemont, ABL’s president and CFO, shared his view on the company’s new status.

“We don’t see our valuation as an achievement so much as a serious responsibility to deliver value,” Piemont told CNBC. “We’ve never optimized for valuation and we’ve kept most of our achievements private. We know we still have a lot to prove. We’re out to build an enduring company with the best people, customers, and investors in the world.”

Well that's a refreshing take compared to a lot of companies (both new space and Silicon Valley in general) that seem designed to just funnel in money with the product being a secondary goal.

[TrevorMonty]

That initial $49m may get a LV to orbit but it doesn't build factory to launch monthly which is where $170m comes in. Both Beck and Elon said building manufacturing capability was as hard as first LV and more expensive.

Of all 1000kg class LV companies I think ABL is one to watch.



Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

[JEF_300]

Dan Piemont, ABL’s president and CFO, shared his view on the company’s new status.

“We don’t see our valuation as an achievement so much as a serious responsibility to deliver value,” Piemont told CNBC. “We’ve never optimized for valuation and we’ve kept most of our achievements private. We know we still have a lot to prove. We’re out to build an enduring company with the best people, customers, and investors in the world.”

Well that's a refreshing take compared to a lot of companies (both new space and Silicon Valley in general) that seem designed to just funnel in money with the product being a secondary goal.

I really like every little tiny snippet that we've seen of the culture of ABL. They seem much more reserved than most NewSpace companies, which I'm personally a fan of. And their focus on simplicity appeals to me too, and probably to most people who have attempted to do any engineering. KISS is such a popular engineering saying for a reason.

In combination, all of that makes ABL seem very much, to me, like a company run by engineers, not managers. Whether that's a good or a bad thing tends to be situational. And that's just my read of the company anyway.

[JEF_300]

That article also had some pretty note-worthy pictures of the first stage in it. I thought I'd repost them here.

First, "The first stage of the company’s RS1 rocket after completing welding."


And second, "An RS1 rocket booster undergoes acceptance testing."

[JEF_300]

And Jeff Foust also put out an article yesterday about ABL's funding round. Some discussion of why they didn't hop on the SPAC band wagon in there too. Plus, another picture of the first stage tanks.

https://spacenews.com/abl-space-systems-raises-170-million/

[ringsider]

A few observations...

That amount of money looks weak compared to the half billion or more raised by Relativity, Astra and Virgin Orbit recently. It automatically moves them at a slower pace than those guys can move. Maybe it is precursor to a SPAC deal?

And that unnamed source of funding is wild. Unnamed? Who needs to keep that under wraps? Lockheed is public, so who needs to be hidden?

ABL themselves are relatively quiet - but perhaps they are quiet because they are not making the progress they thought they would? Let's examine the data.

Going back a couple of years they published this schedule:



So launching by Q3 2020. And more recently, in August 2020, launching in Q1 2021. That date is about to slip away as well, and now we hear Q2 2021 - and management team raises the ugly spectre of licencing delays:

The company is preparing for a first launch of that vehicle as soon as the second quarter. Piemont said that first vehicle should be ready for launch in the second quarter, but that schedule depends on the status of licensing.

Stop me if you heard this somewhere before.

So just how far behind schedule are they?

Let's look at what they are showing. In late October 2020 they were showing SpaceNews photos of a Stage 2, single engine integration test from about 5 months ago at their Edwards test site:-

Test site from the air:



Another view:



If you look closely at that last image, you will notice something about the TVC struts:



That's interesting, for a company flying to space this year.

And in terms of tanks, they are showing the by-now quite repetitive image of the Stage 1 tank sitting on horizontal skids. Let's follow the history of that tank over the past couple of years:

Two variants, welded sheet and isogrid segments:



Rough isogrid assembly internal:



Clamped isogrid assembly:



Painted, but notice no dimpled isogrid pattern as above:



At Edwards with an AFRL logo, being qualified:



That tank is getting so much air time we are amost watching the paint dry in real time.

But notably that tank has not been mated with engines yet. And they need 9 E1 Boost engines (which they decided to make in house) on the first stage.

So where are the images of 9 (turbopumped) E2 Boost engines being tested, let alone mated to the Stage 1?

This page of their website shows an engine being run:

https://ablspacesystems.com/rocket/

[edited based on feedback below]

That's a loop, of a few seconds, not a constant long duration test, and the inlet pipe on the chamber is disconnected, so it's not regenerative. Also, where are the turbopumps? Where is the Stage 1 powerpack integration?

Whsat we have seen is one Stage 2 engine in that integrated testing image above, and a short loop of a non-regenerative engine test.

And that image of the integrated test above is from October 22 2020 - 5 months ago - where they said this to SpaceNews:

Small launch vehicle developer ABL Space Systems announced Oct. 22 that it has started a series of static-fire tests of the upper stage of its vehicle, putting the company on track for a first launch in 2021.

The company said it performed integrated stage testing of the upper stage of its RS1 vehicle at Edwards Air Force Base in California. That test included fueling of the stage, refining startup sequences and firing its single E2 engine.

The engine fired for a “short duration” in that test, Piemont said, but didn’t give a specific duration of the burn.

Hmm.

Founded in August 2017, 3.5 years in business. Is it credible they are ready to launch this scale, in that time?

Evidence of technical progress is inconclusive. Licences are abandoned (see posts above) or not readily forthcoming.

Money seems to be arriving, but is it too little, and too late? Based on that original schedule they are where they said they woudl be in Q3 2019 - vehicle integration. So a reasonabel estimate might say they are 18 months behind that schedule on current status. Rolling fowards, that means launching test launches around Q2/Q3 2022, and Firefly's pace at that stage, having also burned $200-250m to get there with a similar vehicle, might a be a good yardstick in the final stages.