GAO: Blue Origin Engine Problems Threaten ULA Vulcan Progress
GAO: Weapon Systems Annual Assessment Updated Program Oversight Approach Needed – Excerpt: National Security Space Launch (NSSL)
Keith’s note: The ULA Vulcan program has contracted with Blue Origin to provide its BE-4 rocket engine. This BE-4 engine is not referred to by name in this report, but it is what is referred to in this report.
“A U.S. produced rocket engine under development for ULA’s Vulcan launch vehicle is experiencing technical challenges related to the igniter and booster capabilities required and may not be qualified in time to support first launches beginning in 2021.
A joint program office and ULA team is tracking these challenges, and NSSL officials told us Vulcan remains on track to support first launches and certification in 2021. However, if ULA cannot complete engine qualification before the 2021 flight certification, the program might continue to rely on ULA’s Atlas V–which uses engines manufactured in the Russian Federation–to support ULA’s 2022 launches, despite a nearly $2.9 billion investment in new launch system development. SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy vehicles are certified to conduct national security launches. The Falcon Heavy is undergoing some modifications to fully meet launch requirements and is on track to support its first mission in May 2021.”
“The Falcon Heavy is undergoing some modifications to fully meet
launch requirements and is on track to support its first mission in May
2021.”
That May, 2021 date seems to be a bit off.
Someone should send the GAO this video:
https://www.youtube.com/wat…
The GAO means the taller fairing and vertical integration, which Falcon Heavy doesn’t have (yet) but which are required for some national security payloads. The May 2021 date is a bit odd. As someone else suggested, it could be a typo and should be May 2022. But I read it as poor phrasing and took it to mean the Falcon Heavy were on track as of May 2021.
Probably a typo; 2022ish. They’ve been working on the LC-39A vertical integration tower off-site and an FH Class 3 (stretched) fairing for the big DoD birds.
https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
It might be the delayed USSF-44 mission, direct to GSO for something classified. It was previously scheduled for Q2 2021 with a Falcon Heavy.
They need a few more $billion to work on a lunar lander. An actual orbital vehicle can wait!
Not sure if this is sarcasm but if it is then bravo. If not then what makes you think they could do any better on a lander?
Cheers
Neil
Hmmm… I wonder if “igniter problems” has to do with start transients caused by combustion instability. Don’t know if this is similar to the problems the F-1 suffered. Not sure what “booster problems” would mean. Don’t suppose we’ll know for quite a while, however…maybe when the history of the BE-4 program is finally written. Are these engines intended to be reusable by separating from the booster stage for recovery?
Should’ve chosen the AR-1 engine, eh…?
AR-1 would likely have had just as many problems, IMHO.
‘Hard to prove a negative’ to coin a phrase. I guess we may never know. Having said that; I disagree. The AR-1 would be a conventional Kerolox engine from a company with vast rocket engine experience. How were we to know that BO would end up being such a disappointment?
AR-1 uses an oxidizer-rich staged combustion cycle. Aerojet Rocketdyne has never developed another engine which uses that cycle. So, it’s a stretch to say that AR-1 is a “a conventional Kerolox engine”, IMHO.
Whether you are correct or not in your assumption – and you may well be – I firmly believe that Aerojet-Rocketdyne’s experience would have allowed them to field a staged combustion Kerolox engine a hell of a lot faster than BO has with the glacial development that their more ‘clean-sheet’ design has done. All this doesn’t mean however that I don’t want Blue’s BE-4 to succeed – I DO. But that is not the point of my statements above. Never has been…
From what I see online, AR-1 is done, though they’re sitting on it, for now, rather than running testing, for lack of a contracted customer. It makes me wonder whether ULA has a version of Vulcan that could accept it and, if so, how far they are from being able to assemble one.
BO has a history of very long development times that could really cramp ULA’s deployment of Vulcan. In their shoes, I’d be looking hard at Plan B.
Since it’s not been tested, it could very well run into issues similar to what BE-4 is having. If you don’t thoroughly test AR-1, it’s a complete unknown in terms of issues like combustion stability.
Not the same fuel. ULA designed Vulcan to burn methane. For them to “choose” AR-1 would have meant, ULA keeps flying Atlas 5 which burns kerosene. AR-1 would have been a :”drop in replacement” for the Russian RD-180. Had ULA chosen AR-1, then there would be no Vulcan. Instead, ULA would have a new version of Atlas 5 same size (smaller) booster diameter, still burning kerosene but with a new american made engine, the AR-1. Big difference.
I have always been fully aware of the differences in fuel for the respective engines, otherwise your points are certainly valid. My comments on this issue are far more about ‘hindsight being 20/20 Etcetera.
They should have gone with the AR-1 from a real space company rather than the BE-4 from Jeff Bezos’ facile indulgence that is long on promises and short on results.
But more importantly, it tickles me pink that these guys could have developed their own first stage landing tech from scratch in the years they’ve been talking about the Vulcan, and instead have resolved to to basically kitbash something made from Delta IV tooling to some outsourced engines and some boosters they had lying around.
Like… ULA does know this is a cr*p rocket on paper right? Its more expensive and less capable than something that existed four years ago, and will be lapped twice by Starship over the next few years. What’s the damn point of it all, from what was once America’s premier rocket building company?
To a degree we’re even seeing this with Arianespace and even Russia. The refusal to even engage in basic Grasshopper-level landing experiments is insane. But still, the press on, thinking they can carve out a slice of the pie to be worthy existing. Doubtful. Falcon variants have knocked them down. Starship will take them out.
The refusal to even engage in basic Grasshopper-level landing experiments
That is what the New Shepard is all about. I think they have the landing thing nailed. Now if only there was a little less graditum and a little more ferociter.
With Blue Origin, for sure. They’ve done the launch and landing pathfinder vehicles. But the fact ULA and Arianespace won’t touch landings with a 10 foot pole despite SpaceX operationally doing them for years is absolutely nuts.
As much as I admit I kind of like making fun of Blue Origin, ULA CEO Tory Bruno has a very different take