The Competition of the Methalox engines

[Gliderflyer]

Does the work continue in ALPACA?

Appendix N

[DanClemmensen]

Does the work continue in ALPACA?

Appendix N

To expand that a bit, NASA awarded five contracts on 14 Sep 2021 for design work on the "sustainable HLS" to be used after the two  landings of the "initial HLS" (i.e., Starship HLS). Dynetics got the biggest award ($40 million). SpaceX got the smallest ($10 million), presumably because that was all they asked for to improve on the initial Starship HLS. The other three awards were to Blue Origin, Lockheed Martin, and Northrup Grumman, presumably for a new version of their ILS: these three awards sum to about $95.6 million.

For an overview, see:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_HLS_development_history
For the award announcement, See:
    https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-selects-five-us-companies-to-mature-artemis-lander-concepts

Personal opinion: the only way any lander other than the gen 2 Starship HLS would be used is if the Starship HLS program fails completely. I suppose the extra $135 million is basically an insurance policy. I could be wrong and the other teams may be doing something other than incremental improvement of their prior designs. The prior designs were reasonably close to meeting the initial HLS requirements, while Starship HLS massively exceeded them.

[Hug]

Oh wow, can you say the name of the engine?

A new BE-5 or BE-6?

ALPACA main engine.

Contextually humorous, the BE-5 was Blue's methalox lunar landing engine before it got dropped for the BE-7.

[Gliderflyer]

Oh wow, can you say the name of the engine?

A new BE-5 or BE-6?

ALPACA main engine.

Contextually humorous, the BE-5 was Blue's methalox lunar landing engine before it got dropped for the BE-7.

Interesting, I heard it was something else.

[trimeta]

Does the work continue in ALPACA?

Appendix N

To expand that a bit, NASA awarded five contracts on 14 Sep 2021 for design work on the "sustainable HLS" to be used after the two  landings of the "initial HLS" (i.e., Starship HLS). Dynetics got the biggest award ($40 million). SpaceX got the smallest ($10 million), presumably because that was all they asked for to improve on the initial Starship HLS. The other three awards were to Blue Origin, Lockheed Martin, and Northrup Grumman, presumably for a new version of their ILS: these three awards sum to about $95.6 million.

For an overview, see:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_HLS_development_history
For the award announcement, See:
    https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-selects-five-us-companies-to-mature-artemis-lander-concepts

Personal opinion: the only way any lander other than the gen 2 Starship HLS would be used is if the Starship HLS program fails completely. I suppose the extra $135 million is basically an insurance policy. I could be wrong and the other teams may be doing something other than incremental improvement of their prior designs. The prior designs were reasonably close to meeting the initial HLS requirements, while Starship HLS massively exceeded them.

Veering off-topic here, but I thought the whole point of Appendix N was to facilitate proposals for LETS, and the ultimate goal is to select two providers for LETS. So although Starship will likely win one slot, there's another that could go to Dynetics or National Team. Assuming there's actually enough funding, but perhaps Congress will be sufficiently forewarned this time that if they want two winners, they need to allocate money for two winners.

[Yggdrasill]

Logically, it doesn't make too much sense with two providers for HLS. We are talking about 1-2 landings per year, at most.  That'a really low rate, which means expensive, and then you divide it by two? It's just economically irresponsible. And redundancy isn't really needed for safety or anything. If that was the motivation, you would want to look at a second provider for Orion-like capabilities. But that something is expensive and unnecessary is no huge obstacle for Congress, of course.

I think the point of allowing for multiple awards, and new entrants, is to ensure a competitive process where the best possible bids are provided. You wouldn't want everyone except SpaceX to drop out. But I would assess the actual chance of a second provider being selected to be relatively low. That's not to say SpaceX is certain to get selected - they need to be competitive. But they are of course quite well positioned to give the best bid.

[DanClemmensen]

Does the work continue in ALPACA?

Appendix N

To expand that a bit, NASA awarded five contracts on 14 Sep 2021 for design work on the "sustainable HLS" to be used after the two  landings of the "initial HLS" (i.e., Starship HLS). Dynetics got the biggest award ($40 million). SpaceX got the smallest ($10 million), presumably because that was all they asked for to improve on the initial Starship HLS. The other three awards were to Blue Origin, Lockheed Martin, and Northrup Grumman, presumably for a new version of their ILS: these three awards sum to about $95.6 million.

For an overview, see:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_HLS_development_history
For the award announcement, See:
    https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-selects-five-us-companies-to-mature-artemis-lander-concepts

Personal opinion: the only way any lander other than the gen 2 Starship HLS would be used is if the Starship HLS program fails completely. I suppose the extra $135 million is basically an insurance policy. I could be wrong and the other teams may be doing something other than incremental improvement of their prior designs. The prior designs were reasonably close to meeting the initial HLS requirements, while Starship HLS massively exceeded them.

Veering off-topic here, but I thought the whole point of Appendix N was to facilitate proposals for LETS, and the ultimate goal is to select two providers for LETS. So although Starship will likely win one slot, there's another that could go to Dynetics or National Team. Assuming there's actually enough funding, but perhaps Congress will be sufficiently forewarned this time that if they want two winners, they need to allocate money for two winners.

"Congress" did not want two initial HLS winners, they wanted one winner: the national team. Then SpaceX came in at less than half the price and more than ten times the capability by any reasonable technical measure. "Congress" then tried a few tricks to fund the national team as a second provider, but the appropriation did not go through. (I have often wondered based on no information whatsoever why NASA extended the design phase by two months. Maybe to give the other teams a chance to re-evaluate based on rumors of Starship HLS?)  We will see what happens for the "sustainable" HLS. This would all be entirely off-topic except that apparently all of the HLS candidates use methalox engines somewhere in the mission.

[ZachF]

Raptor is the best one, and it’s pretty simple why:

If RL had a Raptor-quality engine at the price SX is paying, they wouldn’t be using Archimedes.

If Blue had a Raptor-quality engine at the price SX is paying, they wouldn’t be using BE-4.

If Arianespace had a Raptor-quality engine at the price SX is paying, they wouldn’t be using Prometheus.

[libra]

Raptor is the best one, and it’s pretty simple why:

If RL had a Raptor-quality engine at the price SX is paying, they wouldn’t be using Archimedes.

If Blue had a Raptor-quality engine at the price SX is paying, they wouldn’t be using BE-4.

If Arianespace had a Raptor-quality engine at the price SX is paying, they wouldn’t be using Prometheus.

And if my grandmother had wheels, we would call her a wagon (sorry, couldn't resist !)

[JCRM]

Raptor is the best one, and it’s pretty simple why:

Should the Raptor ever meet the hoped for quality, aspirational reliability, dreamed of reusability, and claimed price, it's still doubtful that other engine users would find them appropriate for their needs.

[TrevorMonty]

Raptor is the best one, and it’s pretty simple why:

If RL had a Raptor-quality engine at the price SX is paying, they wouldn’t be using Archimedes.

If Blue had a Raptor-quality engine at the price SX is paying, they wouldn’t be using BE-4.

If Arianespace had a Raptor-quality engine at the price SX is paying, they wouldn’t be using Prometheus.

Raptor is to big for Neutron. High performance doesn't mean low operating costs or long life both of which make for low cost RLV.


Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

[Yggdrasill]

Raptor is to big for Neutron. High performance doesn't mean low operating costs or long life both of which make for low cost RLV.

3x Raptor would be fine. (Coincidentally that's also the number of Raptors SpaceX has most experience flying.) But of course, the further along the design process goes with 7 engines, the less attractive it would be to change the number of engines. They might not want to make the change if the Raptors became available today, but if they were available right at the start of the design process, they would obviously have been very desirable.

Using Raptor on the upper stage however is less workable. Even Archimedes is really too big. If the first stage used Raptor, though, Rocket Lab could have used their design resources on perfectly sized methalox vacuum engine, where they also don't have the weight penalties of an engine designed for rapid reuse, given that they will be expended.

But this is all utterly hypothetical.

[Robotbeat]

Raptor is the best one, and it’s pretty simple why:

Should the Raptor ever meet the hoped for quality, aspirational reliability, dreamed of reusability, and claimed price, it's still doubtful that other engine users would find them appropriate for their needs.

If it met all those things and was available to purchase, people would change their needs to be compatible. Raptor is that good.

[meekGee]

Raptor is the best one, and it’s pretty simple why:

Should the Raptor ever meet the hoped for quality, aspirational reliability, dreamed of reusability, and claimed price, it's still doubtful that other engine users would find them appropriate for their needs.

Yeah, who wants any of these things?

[DanClemmensen]

Raptor is the best one, and it’s pretty simple why:

Should the Raptor ever meet the hoped for quality, aspirational reliability, dreamed of reusability, and claimed price, it's still doubtful that other engine users would find them appropriate for their needs.

Absolutely correct for any organization with one or more of the following mandatory requirements:
  *"Anybody but SpaceX"
  *Must be an EU engine
  *Must be a Russian engine
  *Must be a Chinese engine
  *Must be developed in-house
Of course, an organization with any of these mandatory requirements must be prepared to compete with a superior launcher that uses Raptor.

[deadman1204]

Of course, an organization with any of these mandatory requirements must be prepared to compete with a superior launcher that uses Raptor.

Except its not as free of a marketplace as people imagine. Anything government centric will always use its own (russian, chinese, european, japanese, ect).

There are also companies out there that simply will not use spaceX no matter what (oneweb, amazon/kuiper).

Competition is only one factor, and not an overwhelmingly large one.

[DanClemmensen]

Of course, an organization with any of these mandatory requirements must be prepared to compete with a superior launcher that uses Raptor.

Except its not as free of a marketplace as people imagine. Anything government centric will always use its own (russian, chinese, european, japanese, ect).

There are also companies out there that simply will not use spaceX no matter what (oneweb, amazon/kuiper).

Competition is only one factor, and not an overwhelmingly large one.

You are agreeing with my post. You deleted the parts that state exactly what you stated.

[trimeta]

Raptor is the best one, and it’s pretty simple why:

Should the Raptor ever meet the hoped for quality, aspirational reliability, dreamed of reusability, and claimed price, it's still doubtful that other engine users would find them appropriate for their needs.

Absolutely correct for any organization with one or more of the following mandatory requirements:
  *"Anybody but SpaceX"
  *Must be an EU engine
  *Must be a Russian engine
  *Must be a Chinese engine
  *Must be developed in-house
Of course, an organization with any of these mandatory requirements must be prepared to compete with a superior launcher that uses Raptor.

The bigger issue is that this is all hypothetical, since there's no reason to suspect SpaceX will ever sell Raptor engines to outside organizations. I agree that if other US-based launch providers could buy them for a reasonable markup over manufacturing costs, they definitely would (to TrevorMonty's concerns about "low operating costs or long life," I suspect Raptor would win as well), unless "maintain/develop in-house engine design/manufacturing expertise" was a priority worth losing out on one generation of engines for. But since Raptors aren't for sale, the question isn't "which engine do launch providers use," it's "which launch provider do payload customers use."

IMO the only interesting engine comparison is Archimedes vs. Prometheus, since they're so similar in design and both organizations need an engine ASAP, so pooling their resources (e.g., one paying the other to design and build engines) would potentially actually be beneficial.

[deadman1204]

Of course, an organization with any of these mandatory requirements must be prepared to compete with a superior launcher that uses Raptor.

Except its not as free of a marketplace as people imagine. Anything government centric will always use its own (russian, chinese, european, japanese, ect).

There are also companies out there that simply will not use spaceX no matter what (oneweb, amazon/kuiper).

Competition is only one factor, and not an overwhelmingly large one.

You are agreeing with my post. You deleted the parts that state exactly what you stated.

Crap, I had a total brain fart.  I started out quoting the wrong post to being with!

[ZachF]

Raptor is the best one, and it’s pretty simple why:

If RL had a Raptor-quality engine at the price SX is paying, they wouldn’t be using Archimedes.

If Blue had a Raptor-quality engine at the price SX is paying, they wouldn’t be using BE-4.

If Arianespace had a Raptor-quality engine at the price SX is paying, they wouldn’t be using Prometheus.

Raptor is to big for Neutron. High performance doesn't mean low operating costs or long life both of which make for low cost RLV.


Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Raptor-tier TWR/ISP would essentially double Neutron’s payload capacity in a semi-reusable configuration.

Most of the talk around Archimedes is PR fluff. Archimedes is a simple GG engine because that’s the only engine RL could develop is a reasonable amount of time.

Also, high performance doesn’t necessarily mean high operating cost or low life, as SpaceX’s engine manufacturing and engineering ability vastly exceeds RL’s.

I don’t think most people have mathed out Raptor vs other engines. It’s plain better. And post-Raptor will be even better than that.