ABL Space Systems: General Thread

[edzieba]

See my post above: constraint is not the fairing structure, it's their desired logistics and operations.

[TrevorMonty]

See my post above: constraint is not the fairing structure, it's their desired logistics and operations.

He is referring to post #68.
If business is good enough they will most likely build dedicated pad with associated payload integration facilities.
At this stage mobile operations gets them to orbit quickly and cheaply.

RL found out hard way that building remote  launch facilities isn't easy or cheap. Given there was no facilities in NZ they had no choice. In their case it was worth it to have air space with next no air traffic.

While Vanderburg has all facilities it also comes with compromises which may limit launch rate. ABL maybe better off in long run building dedicated pad at more remote site.

[TrevorMonty]

LM have investments in both RL and ABL.

I originally thought LM were going to launch Electron out of UK but it maybe RS1.   Electron already has 3rd stage while RS1 doesn't seem to have one.

https://spacenews.com/lockheed-martin-shifts-u-k-launch-site/

The U.K. Space Agency announced in July 2018 that Lockheed Martin and Orbex, a small launch vehicle startup, would be the first customers of the Sutherland spaceport, whose development the agency announced at the same time. Orbex received $7 million and Lockheed Martin $31 million, part of which went toward development of an upper stage called the Small Launch Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle that it would build in the U.K.

[playadelmars]

If Lockheed has investments in both rocket lab and ABL why did they choose Relativity to launch their NASA payload in 2023? Funded government launch contract and high profile mission for Artemis lunar development...

[JEF_300]

If Lockheed has investments in both rocket lab and ABL why did they choose Relativity to launch their NASA payload in 2023? Funded government launch contract and high profile mission for Artemis lunar development...

That mission requires a custom payload fairing for pumping cryogenic fuels into the payload while it's on the pad. Relativity are (apparently) the only ones who were able to fulfill that requirement.

[moddedLimes]

Just noticed that ABL's FCC application for their frequencies got "DISMISSED-WITHOUT PREJUDICE": https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=264038&x=

Looks like they didn't provide their "Orbital Debris Assessment Report" quickly enough: https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=262168&x=. https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=263571&x=.

They also have not reapplied again after their application got denied, so that's gonna be a fun timeline if they still plan to launch in Feb-April due to NTIA and ITU coordination

[Galactic Penguin SST]

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/08/rocket-startup-abl-space-aims-for-first-rs1-launch-in-a-few-months.html

I didn't know that they are trying for such a mobile pad set-up with a RP-1/LOX launcher - curiously the only one player I know of that seems to be buying this idea heavily is the Chinese (see Long March 6)! Though I have doubts that a. this can really cut costs by a significant amount over the competitors in the same class and b. there are that much of a "quick responsive launch" demand, even if the Chinese seem to be 200% bought into this concept with all their major players trying for that, government or private.

Also it doesn't seems like the progress made public are really supporting a Q2 2021 launch, no?

[TrevorMonty]

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/08/rocket-startup-abl-space-aims-for-first-rs1-launch-in-a-few-months.html

I didn't know that they are trying for such a mobile pad set-up with a RP-1/LOX launcher - curiously the only one player I know of that seems to be buying this idea heavily is the Chinese (see Long March 6)! Though I have doubts that a. this can really cut costs by a significant amount over the competitors in the same class and b. there are that much of a "quick responsive launch" demand, even if the Chinese seem to be 200% bought into this concept with all their major players trying for that, government or private.

Also it doesn't seems like the progress made public are really supporting a Q2 2021 launch, no?

At this stage priority is making orbit with ELV. They open to idea of RLV especially as they have lot of ex SpaceX F9R engineers working for them.

[vaporcobra]

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/08/rocket-startup-abl-space-aims-for-first-rs1-launch-in-a-few-months.html

Also it doesn't seems like the progress made public are really supporting a Q2 2021 launch, no?

Idk, they don't seem like the type of company to blatantly lie about progress given how little they've shared. $25M from nothing to full-scale integrated stage and engine testing in ~3 years also strongly implies that ABL is really on a different level relative to any other serious startup out there right now. But at the same time, the lack of mission-duration S1 or S2 tests does make Q2 or even Q3 2021 sound like a stretch.

Edit: Just to add a little context, the CNBC exclusive includes a photo purportedly showing an RS-1 booster's tankage, which makes a late-Q2 debut slightly more plausible.

[su27k]

3 years, $50M VC funding for a 1.35t to LEO LV? Sounds too good to be true, but we'll see...

[Robotbeat]

All metal construction, including fairing. They are cheaper than Firefly and will only launch a few months after Alpha. Going be interesting competition in this class, with Relativity being 3rd entrance in year or two. Relativity may struggle if these competitors are well established, especially as ABL pricing is competitive with Relativity.

3rd?

By my count, 6th among (arguably) domestic companies. And honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if someone else beat them.
1) RocketLab (now operational)
2/3) VirginOrbit or Astra. Basically tied. Both have had orbital attempts but failed. Astra is arguably faster at execution, but payload is smaller.
4) Firefly Alpha
5) ABL

Heck, even Launcher might beat them, but I doubt it.

[Robotbeat]

3 years, $50M VC funding for a 1.35t to LEO LV? Sounds too good to be true, but we'll see...

Falcon 1(e), basically. And doable if done by people who knew what they were doing (but also can go really fast). Which it is, since it's run by former SpaceX people. Also, 3D printing makes development of small liquid rocket engines easier than it was.

They've got a shot, honestly.

[Robotbeat]

If Lockheed has investments in both rocket lab and ABL why did they choose Relativity to launch their NASA payload in 2023? Funded government launch contract and high profile mission for Artemis lunar development...

That mission requires a custom payload fairing for pumping cryogenic fuels into the payload while it's on the pad. Relativity are (apparently) the only ones who were able to fulfill that requirement.

Falcon 9 is doing that for one of the CLPS landers this year. Nova-C in October. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova-C

[TrevorMonty]

All metal construction, including fairing. They are cheaper than Firefly and will only launch a few months after Alpha. Going be interesting competition in this class, with Relativity being 3rd entrance in year or two. Relativity may struggle if these competitors are well established, especially as ABL pricing is competitive with Relativity.

3rd?

By my count, 6th among (arguably) domestic companies. And honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if someone else beat them.
1) RocketLab (now operational)
2/3) VirginOrbit or Astra. Basically tied. Both have had orbital attempts but failed. Astra is arguably faster at execution, but payload is smaller.
4) Firefly Alpha
5) ABL

Heck, even Launcher might beat them, but I doubt it.

I was talking about 1000kg class of LVs. Rest are in 200-500kg range.

[TrevorMonty]

3 years, $50M VC funding for a 1.35t to LEO LV? Sounds too good to be true, but we'll see...

Realistic for flying first LV, building factory to produce 10-20 a year takes lot more money. Peter Beck has mention this few times. Going down RLV path would allow for smaller cheaper factory as it would mainly produce 2nd stages and fairings with occasion booster.

Instead of investing in larger factory use money to develop RLV.

[PM3]

I didn't know that they are trying for such a mobile pad set-up with a RP-1/LOX launcher - curiously the only one player I know of that seems to be buying this idea heavily is the Chinese (see Long March 6)! Though I have doubts that a. this can really cut costs by a significant amount over the competitors in the same class and b. there are that much of a "quick responsive launch" demand, even if the Chinese seem to be 200% bought into this concept with all their major players trying for that, government or private.

RS1 payload user's guide offers launches from Camden, Cape Canaveral, Kodiak, Vandenberg and Wallops (to begin with - they can add international locations). They can chose whatever location fits the mission and offers low rates. That would not be feasible with stationary pads.

[Robotbeat]

All metal construction, including fairing. They are cheaper than Firefly and will only launch a few months after Alpha. Going be interesting competition in this class, with Relativity being 3rd entrance in year or two. Relativity may struggle if these competitors are well established, especially as ABL pricing is competitive with Relativity.

3rd?

By my count, 6th among (arguably) domestic companies. And honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if someone else beat them.
1) RocketLab (now operational)
2/3) VirginOrbit or Astra. Basically tied. Both have had orbital attempts but failed. Astra is arguably faster at execution, but payload is smaller.
4) Firefly Alpha
5) ABL

Heck, even Launcher might beat them, but I doubt it.

I was talking about 1000kg class of LVs. Rest are in 200-500kg range.

Arguably, they're still in competition for many of the same payloads (also, I think there's less difference between a 500kg rocket and a 1000kg rocket than you might think... Falcon 1 was 450kg LEO, Falcon 1e--which used the same engine but was stretched--was to be 1010kg... anything much less than 1000kg is reaching diminishing returns of smallness, so it doesn't take a whole lot to double performance). I would still group them as they're all "small-lift launch vehicles" (i.e. <2000kg LEO).

[edzieba]

But at the same time, the lack of mission-duration S1 or S2 tests does make Q2 or even Q3 2021 sound like a stretch.

Depending on just how cheap their manufacturing is, they may be intending to 'test in flight' as Starship has done (and as was done with many vehicles in the 60s and 70s) in lieu of building a test stand capable of supporting a full duration stage firing. If stages and motors are cheap enough, you could blow up quite a few while still being cost competitive with a fixed stand, and for a startup that is a large upfront cost you can avoid in favour of 'betting' on your confidence that your stage will work first time.

[trimeta]

I didn't know that they are trying for such a mobile pad set-up with a RP-1/LOX launcher - curiously the only one player I know of that seems to be buying this idea heavily is the Chinese (see Long March 6)! Though I have doubts that a. this can really cut costs by a significant amount over the competitors in the same class and b. there are that much of a "quick responsive launch" demand, even if the Chinese seem to be 200% bought into this concept with all their major players trying for that, government or private.

RS1 payload user's guide offers launches from Camden, Cape Canaveral, Kodiak, Vandenberg and Wallops (to begin with - they can add international locations). They can chose whatever location fits the mission and offers low rates. That would not be feasible with stationary pads.

Their list of possible launch sites doesn't entirely impress me, as they give latitude/longitude values instead of actual launch complexes. Plus, the coordinates given for Wallops Island, VA have longitude as East instead of West, so taken literally they claim to be launching from western China. (This error persists on their website, which they could fix at any time.)

Also, the difficulties Astra has had with launching from anywhere but PSC-A (I have to assume they'd have moved if at all possible, for better weather) suggests there may be a gulf between "we're technically capable of launching from a clean pad" and "launch complexes are happy to host us and have our rockets overflying their facilities."

[Robotbeat]

But at the same time, the lack of mission-duration S1 or S2 tests does make Q2 or even Q3 2021 sound like a stretch.

Depending on just how cheap their manufacturing is, they may be intending to 'test in flight' as Starship has done (and as was done with many vehicles in the 60s and 70s) in lieu of building a test stand capable of supporting a full duration stage firing. If stages and motors are cheap enough, you could blow up quite a few while still being cost competitive with a fixed stand, and for a startup that is a large upfront cost you can avoid in favour of 'betting' on your confidence that your stage will work first time.

I tend to think that's a false economy.

SpaceX does a TON of acceptance testing with Falcon. Starship is so big there's nowhere to do that kind of testing (well, Stennis, but that's super expensive), and they still do static fires and long duration engine tests.