ABL Space Systems: General Thread

[ParabolicSnark]

This page of their website shows an engine being run:

https://ablspacesystems.com/rocket/

But look closely.

Firstly isn't that an Ursa Hadley? Secondly, 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.

That image is not a Hadley. If we look at that image and the original image ABL shared when they brought engines in house, it's clear that they match. They have the same head end flanges and dimples on the outside, where as the Hadley has more linear style ribs just aft the of the throat and a much longer diverging nozzle.

If we look at the original graphic, there are two inlets on the chamber's aft end: one fuel line to an angled flange and one turbine exhaust to an axial flange. The flange you state is disconnected is axial, so that means there's no pump on that test, or at least none that are dumping into the nozzle flow. If you look at the bottom of the image, there is a flexible line going into an angled flange, indicating that it must be the fuel line and that this test is actually regeneratively cooled.

E2 engine image from their website:


Compared to E2 graphic during reveal:


Ursa Major's Hadley for comparison:

[russianhalo117]

A few observations...

AFRL Rocket Propulsion Division Area 1-56 (Area 1, Stand 56) hosts AFRL Test Stand 1-56 known as the Shaft Preparation and Rocket Thrust (SPART) facility and is a facility used by member of the National Rocket Propulsion Test Alliance (NRPTA).

Some AFRL Rocket Propulsion Division Area info including site map:
https://www.nasa.gov/Directorates/heo/rpt/afrl-test-stand-1-56.html
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1034359.pdf

[ringsider]

This page of their website shows an engine being run:

https://ablspacesystems.com/rocket/

But look closely.

Firstly isn't that an Ursa Hadley? Secondly, 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.

That image is not a Hadley. If we look at that image and the original image ABL shared when they brought engines in house, it's clear that they match. They have the same head end flanges and dimples on the outside, where as the Hadley has more linear style ribs just aft the of the throat and a much longer diverging nozzle.

Thanks. Corrected above.

[JEF_300]

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.

Last time I tried to do a deep dive on ABL a couple months ago, I couldn't find any pictures of a flight first stage. And then yesterday comes, and we get all these articles which together have months worth of first stage images, from welding to painting to testing. Either they move absurdly fast, or they are pretty good at being in stealth mode, and we should accept that our data on them may not be very good.

As for how they compare to finacially to Firefly and Relativity, they apparently think they don't need nearly as much money as those two do. This is a quote from the CNBC article of the CEO of ABL: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/25/abl-space-raises-170m-from-t-rowe-fidelity-at-1point3-billion-valuation.html

“We have always prided ourselves on capital efficiency,” ABL CEO Harry O’Hanley told CNBC, noting the company has spent “well under” $50 million to date.

“If you compare us to other companies spending hundreds of millions of dollars developing launch vehicles, you should see how fundamentally differentiated our underlying approach must be to achieve that,” O’Hanley added.

The Jeff Foust article directly adresses the SPAC point: https://spacenews.com/abl-space-systems-raises-170-million/

Piemont argued that the funding round ABL raised is preferable to a SPAC, avoiding the scrutiny that public companies face. “We think that a private round with this type of investor syndicate is a great alternative to a SPAC at this stage, with most of the benefits but less risk of distraction from focusing on our customers’ immediate needs,” he said.

Those are the only points I'm addressing directly because those are the only ones i can point to quotes for. Here's a health dose of speculation and generalization to respond to the rest of your post:

There is always someone suspicious of every smallsat launch company that claims it's nearing launch, and those suspicions are only heightened when that company has tight lips. And for good reasons.

That being said, I don't think a launch company has been found yet that was being quiet because they were failing. From what we've seen, launch startups tend to either suddenly go bankrupt (Firefly Space Systems), or constantly talk about a very small amount of progress in an effort to attract investment, and then go bankrupt later (Vector was the company I had in mind).

It also seems like a quiet beginning is just a natural part of a launch startup's life cycle. They're are quiet in their early years, and start opening up once they're ready to start doing things. As I recall, that was even true of SpaceX with the Falcon 1. We saw it more recently with Astra.

If I were to guess, a launch startup being quiet often probably has less to do with how their development is going, and more to do with being a startup, where time and money are tight and spending of it on publicity is difficult to justify.

[trimeta]

It also seems like a quiet beginning is just a natural part of a launch startup's life cycle. They're are quiet in their early years, and start opening up once they're ready to start doing things. As I recall, that was even true of SpaceX with the Falcon 1. We saw it more recently with Astra.

Whether or not being quiet is a natural part of a launch startup's life cycle, it does seem to be a core part of ABL's culture: they've basically taken the mantel of "Stealth Space Launch Company" now that Astra has abdicated the throne.

[HMXHMX]

A few observations...

AFRL Rocket Propulsion Division Area 1-56 (Area 1, Stand 56) hosts AFRL Test Stand 1-56 known as the Shaft Preparation and Rocket Thrust (SPART) facility and is a facility used by member of the National Rocket Propulsion Test Alliance (NRPTA).

Some AFRL Rocket Propulsion Division Area info including site map:
https://www.nasa.gov/Directorates/heo/rpt/afrl-test-stand-1-56.html
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1034359.pdf

The same test Area hosted AMROC's 250K-lbf hybrid in the late 1980s and early 1990s.  I had the next test stand up the road, at 1-46.  It is a nice location.

[TrevorMonty]

Schedule slips are norm for all new LVs, with 2020 adding extra delays.
The $50m for developing first LV is about  the same amount Peter Beck quote for Electron. RL biggest expense as been gearing up for mass production and launch. This is same reason ABL need $170m.




Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/05/lockheed-martin-buys-up-to-58-launches-from-rocket-builder-abl-space.html

Lockheed Martin buys up to 58 launches over the next decade from rocket builder ABL Space
PUBLISHED MON, APR 5 202111:00 AM EDT
Michael Sheetz
@THESHEETZTWEETZ

KEY POINTS

Lockheed Martin will buy up to 26 of ABL Space’s RS1 rockets through 2025, with an option for up to 32 additional launches through 2029.

ABL declined to comment on the financial terms of the contract.

Based on ABL’s $12 million price tag for an RS1 rocket, the deal with Lockheed Martin is estimated to be worth nearly $700 million over eight years, assuming the maximum number of launches.

The large contract represents a coup for ABL in the medium-lift segment of the launch market, where it is competing with companies including Richard Branson’s Virgin Orbit, Relativity Space, Firefly Aerospace, and Rocket Lab.

[Galactic Penguin SST]

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/05/lockheed-martin-buys-up-to-58-launches-from-rocket-builder-abl-space.html

Lockheed Martin buys up to 58 launches over the next decade from rocket builder ABL Space
PUBLISHED MON, APR 5 202111:00 AM EDT
Michael Sheetz
@THESHEETZTWEETZ

KEY POINTS

Lockheed Martin will buy up to 26 of ABL Space’s RS1 rockets through 2025, with an option for up to 32 additional launches through 2029.

ABL declined to comment on the financial terms of the contract.

Based on ABL’s $12 million price tag for an RS1 rocket, the deal with Lockheed Martin is estimated to be worth nearly $700 million over eight years, assuming the maximum number of launches.

The large contract represents a coup for ABL in the medium-lift segment of the launch market, where it is competing with companies including Richard Branson’s Virgin Orbit, Relativity Space, Firefly Aerospace, and Rocket Lab.

The wording of this deal seems very fluid to me, more like a generic MoU... 

[JEF_300]

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/05/lockheed-martin-buys-up-to-58-launches-from-rocket-builder-abl-space.html

Lockheed Martin buys up to 58 launches over the next decade from rocket builder ABL Space
PUBLISHED MON, APR 5 202111:00 AM EDT
Michael Sheetz
@THESHEETZTWEETZ

KEY POINTS

Lockheed Martin will buy up to 26 of ABL Space’s RS1 rockets through 2025, with an option for up to 32 additional launches through 2029.

ABL declined to comment on the financial terms of the contract.

Based on ABL’s $12 million price tag for an RS1 rocket, the deal with Lockheed Martin is estimated to be worth nearly $700 million over eight years, assuming the maximum number of launches.

The large contract represents a coup for ABL in the medium-lift segment of the launch market, where it is competing with companies including Richard Branson’s Virgin Orbit, Relativity Space, Firefly Aerospace, and Rocket Lab.

Another quote:

While ABL had previously hoped to be ready to launch as early as March, president Dan Piemont said that the company is now aiming “for flight readiness by June.” The rocket builder recently finished acceptance testing on the first RS1 fuel tank, but Piemont said ABL expects the required launch site regulatory approvals will delay its first launch attempt to the third quarter of this year.

That tracks with the denied regulatory requests we saw earlier in the year.

Let's talk a bit about what 56 RS1 launches would look like. I don't think LM will end up using all of those launches, but ABL must think that they are capable of meeting that demand, so some perspective is worthwhile.

The article says that the 56 launches divide down into up-to 26 launches through 2025, or about 7 launches a year, and then up-to 32 launches through 2029, which is about 8 launches a year.
At $12 Million a launch, which is the listed price on their site, 56 launches is $672,000,000.
At 1350 kg to LEO, which is the LEO payload listed on their site, 56 Launches is 75 tons in LEO.

With even just a few launches from other sources, this would keep the company afloat for years. That is, if LM actually wanted all of the launches. But 8/9 launches a year also isn't outrageous or anything. Certainly doable.

[trimeta]

For reference, as of January 8th they had around 105 employees. You can use that to estimate their fixed costs (at least, how much they're spending annually just on payroll), which may give a sense of how much money they need to be pulling in to be profitable.

[TrevorMonty]

For reference, as of January 8th they had around 105 employees. You can use that to estimate their fixed costs (at least, how much they're spending annually just on payroll), which may give a sense of how much money they need to be pulling in to be profitable.

Will need lot more than 105 employees to build and launch 7-10 LVs a year. They could go down RLV path, RS1 is light enough for MAR, may need reentry burn.



Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

[edzieba]

Will need lot more than 105 employees to build and launch 7-10 LVs a year.

Their entire company goal seems to be to not need several hundred people to launch a small rocket every 7-8 weeks.

As an existence proof, roadable ICBMs can be readied and launched with tiny (single to very low double-digit) crews, albeit without payload integration or handling liquid propellants.
Even assuming a 20 person crew to handle a launch and all related activities (e.g. permanently assigned to transport vehicles and equipment, acquire and handle propellants at local sites, etc) that leaves ~80 people for production. With 8-hour shifts and weekends off, that gives you a reasonable minimum of ~166,000 man-hours per year, or ~23,700 man-hours per rocket. That does not seem an unreasonable challenge for a small vehicle. In terms of salary, using $100k/year as a ballpark that puts manpower cost per vehicle in the range of $1.5mn, which seems to give decent headroom for tool-rich-touch-poor processes for manufacture (e.g. the additive manufactured engines).

[Robotbeat]

Will need lot more than 105 employees to build and launch 7-10 LVs a year.

Their entire company goal seems to be to not need several hundred people to launch a small rocket every 7-8 weeks.

As an existence proof, roadable ICBMs can be readied and launched with tiny (single to very low double-digit) crews, albeit without payload integration or handling liquid propellants.
Even assuming a 20 person crew to handle a launch and all related activities (e.g. permanently assigned to transport vehicles and equipment, acquire and handle propellants at local sites, etc) that leaves ~80 people for production. With 8-hour shifts and weekends off, that gives you a reasonable minimum of ~166,000 man-hours per year, or ~23,700 man-hours per rocket. That does not seem an unreasonable challenge for a small vehicle. In terms of salary, using $100k/year as a ballpark that puts manpower cost per vehicle in the range of $1.5mn, which seems to give decent headroom for tool-rich-touch-poor processes for manufacture (e.g. the additive manufactured engines).

there have been more than a couple road transportable liquid rocket ballistic missiles.

[edzieba]

Will need lot more than 105 employees to build and launch 7-10 LVs a year.

Their entire company goal seems to be to not need several hundred people to launch a small rocket every 7-8 weeks.

As an existence proof, roadable ICBMs can be readied and launched with tiny (single to very low double-digit) crews, albeit without payload integration or handling liquid propellants.
Even assuming a 20 person crew to handle a launch and all related activities (e.g. permanently assigned to transport vehicles and equipment, acquire and handle propellants at local sites, etc) that leaves ~80 people for production. With 8-hour shifts and weekends off, that gives you a reasonable minimum of ~166,000 man-hours per year, or ~23,700 man-hours per rocket. That does not seem an unreasonable challenge for a small vehicle. In terms of salary, using $100k/year as a ballpark that puts manpower cost per vehicle in the range of $1.5mn, which seems to give decent headroom for tool-rich-touch-poor processes for manufacture (e.g. the additive manufactured engines).

there have been more than a couple road transportable liquid rocket ballistic missiles.

True, but all using storable propellants (hypergols), and AFAIR none that did not store the propellants inside the vehicle tanks while on duty - with the exception of the V2.

[Pueo]

Will need lot more than 105 employees to build and launch 7-10 LVs a year.

Their entire company goal seems to be to not need several hundred people to launch a small rocket every 7-8 weeks.

As an existence proof, roadable ICBMs can be readied and launched with tiny (single to very low double-digit) crews, albeit without payload integration or handling liquid propellants.
Even assuming a 20 person crew to handle a launch and all related activities (e.g. permanently assigned to transport vehicles and equipment, acquire and handle propellants at local sites, etc) that leaves ~80 people for production. With 8-hour shifts and weekends off, that gives you a reasonable minimum of ~166,000 man-hours per year, or ~23,700 man-hours per rocket. That does not seem an unreasonable challenge for a small vehicle. In terms of salary, using $100k/year as a ballpark that puts manpower cost per vehicle in the range of $1.5mn, which seems to give decent headroom for tool-rich-touch-poor processes for manufacture (e.g. the additive manufactured engines).

there have been more than a couple road transportable liquid rocket ballistic missiles.

True, but all using storable propellants (hypergols), and AFAIR none that did not store the propellants inside the vehicle tanks while on duty - with the exception of the V2.

The only road-mobile liquid fueled ballistic missile with pre-packaged fuel that I know of is the relatively short ranged MGM-52 Lance.  The Scud and its descendants are all transported along with a convoy of support vehicles that includes fuel and oxidizer tankers and many of the stretched descendants can only be fueled once vertical.  The time it takes to fuel a missile once at the launch site is one of the biggest reasons for the shift to solid fuel in road mobile ballistic missiles.

The main required increase in crew-power for the launch of a SLV vs a BM is going to be the telemetry resources.  Your customers are not going to appreciate an attitude of "Once the rockets are up, who cares how they orbit round?"  Increasingly there are companies that provide that sort of service, but you can get burned like Rocket Lab did their first launch.

[edzieba]

The only road-mobile liquid fueled ballistic missile with pre-packaged fuel that I know of is the relatively short ranged MGM-52 Lance.  The Scud and its descendants are all transported along with a convoy of support vehicles that includes fuel and oxidizer tankers and many of the stretched descendants can only be fueled once vertical.  The time it takes to fuel a missile once at the launch site is one of the biggest reasons for the shift to solid fuel in road mobile ballistic missiles.

AIUI, the UR-100 and UR-100N were stored empty, were fuelled when 'on alert', and so would already have propellants loaded when driven to the launch site and launched (rather than the order to fire requiring propellant loading to start). Though this is getting a bit off topic.

The main required increase in crew-power for the launch of a SLV vs a BM is going to be the telemetry resources.  Your customers are not going to appreciate an attitude of "Once the rockets are up, who cares how they orbit round?"  Increasingly there are companies that provide that sort of service, but you can get burned like Rocket Lab did their first launch.

Starlink & Oneweb may prove a real boon here: with multiply redundant telemetry routes (e.g. Starlink, OneWeb, and Iridium) telemetry downlinking can be done entirely through is-pace links over commercial networks (avoiding TDRS), needing no ground stations at all - at the launch site or downrange. Combined with AFTS needing minimal range resources, they really cuts down on launch site equipment and crew requirements.

[moddedLimes]

Looks like there's a new FCC experimental license application for ABL: https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=106681&RequestTimeout=1000

Of note this looks like it is interfacing testing:

Explanation
Please explain in the area below why an STA is necessary:
ABL Space Systems is requesting an STA to transmit telemetry data from a transmitter on the ground to receiver assets at Vandenberg Air Force Base. This will be a brief, one-time test that will verify our transmitters compatibility with Range assets. There will be no other launch vehicle-related hardware involved in this test.

Purpose of Operation
Please explain the purpose of operation:     The transmitter will transmit from the ground at Vandenberg Air Force Base and telemetry will be received by Vandenberg assets. We have shared this test plan with our project manager at Vandenberg Air Force Base.

So this doesn't exactly tell us when they'll launch but they are trying to get this interface experimental license from 05/01/2021 to 08/14/2021. Maybe a Q1 2022 launch at least?

I'm still surprised how much bandwidth they're trying to get and how they'll get that past the NTIA and ITU.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1394287740406190081

Rocket builder ABL Space announces its fourth Pentagon contract to date, winning a @DIU_x "Responsive Launch II" award.

ABL CEO O'Hanley: “We’re excited to partner with DIU to demonstrate responsive launch operations and deliver new capabilities to the U.S. Government.”

[TGMetsFan98]

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2021/05/abl-joining-market-growing-contracts/

https://twitter.com/TGMetsFan98/status/1395833133916905480