Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday June 09, @09:13PM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the competition++ dept.

Relativity Space reveals fully reusable medium lift launch vehicle Terran R

Relativity Space, leveraging their 3D printing technology, has announced the next step towards supporting multiplanetary spaceflight: a fully reusable, medium lift launch vehicle named Terran R.

The company's second launch vehicle, succeeding the Terran 1 rocket to debut later this year, will have more payload capacity than the partially reusable SpaceX Falcon 9, and is only the second fully reusable commercial launch vehicle to be revealed publicly after SpaceX's Starship.

The two stage Terran R rocket will be 216 feet (65.8 meters) tall and 16 feet (4.9 meters) in diameter. The second stage features aerodynamic surfaces which will enable recovery and reuse, in addition to a reusable 5 meter diameter payload fairing. Terran R will be capable of delivering over 20,000 kilograms to Low Earth Orbit in its reusable configuration, beating Falcon 9's 15,600 kilograms with drone ship recovery.

Just like Terran 1, Relativity's small lift vehicle offering 1,250 kilograms to Low Earth Orbit, the components for Terran R will be 3D printed. Relativity Space aims to reduce cost and improve reliability by designing 3D printed vehicles with a low part count.

Previously: Relativity Space Leases Land at NASA's Stennis Space Center in Mississippi
Aerospace Startup Making 3D-Printed Rockets Now Has a Launch Site at America's Busiest Spaceport
Relativity Space Selected to Launch Satellites for Telesat


Original Submission

Related Stories

Relativity Space Leases Land at NASA's Stennis Space Center in Mississippi

Relativity Space has signed a 20-year deal with NASA to lease the 25-acre E4 Test Complex in Southern Mississippi. The company's footprint there could be expanded to 250 acres:

Even in an era during which the aerospace industry faces significant disruption from myriad new competitors, Relativity Space stands out. The company, led by a pair of twenty-somethings who used to work for Blue Origin and SpaceX, seeks to 3D print rocket engines and the boosters themselves, reducing the number of parts in an orbital rocket from 100,000 down to fewer than 1,000.

Founded in late 2015, Relativity remained in stealth mode until last year, but now it is starting to come out of the shadows. And in doing so, the California-based company is revealing some pretty outsized ambitions. One day, in fact, the company intends to 3D print a rocket on Mars for a return trip to Earth. "We have a pretty broad long-term vision," Tim Ellis, a co-founder of Relativity, admitted in an interview with Ars.

Before it reaches Mars, of course, Relativity must first successfully 3D print a rocket on Earth. Ellis said Relativity is making good progress toward that goal, having already printed engine components for test firings. (The company has performed more than 85 engine tests of various kinds to date). Now, the company has taken a key step toward conducting a lot more engine test firings.

Relativity plans to fly 1,250 kg to LEO for $10 million per launch, with a test flight in late 2020 and commercial launches in 2021. Other small launch providers are targeting payloads in the hundreds of kilograms range.

Also at Quartz.


Original Submission

Aerospace Startup Making 3D-Printed Rockets Now Has a Launch Site at America’s Busiest Spaceport 11 comments

Submitted via IRC for takyon

Aerospace startup making 3D-printed rockets now has a launch site at America’s busiest spaceport

America’s busiest spaceport in Cape Canaveral, Florida, is about to get a new tenant: a startup that shares SpaceX’s ambitious plans of turning humans into a multiplanetary species. The new occupant is LA-based launch provider Relativity Space, a company that wants to revolutionize how rockets are manufactured through the use of fully automated 3D printing. The company will soon have its very own launch site at the Cape for its future 3D-printed vehicles.

Thanks to a new deal with the US Air Force, Relativity will be taking over a site at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station called LC-16. It’s a pad that was once used by the US military to launch Titan and Pershing ballistic missiles. But since the late 1980s, LC-16 has been dormant. The Air Force picked Relativity to move into the area after a very competitive bidding process, and the company will modify the pad to suit its rocket technology. “Getting the launch site agreement was a huge checkmark,” Tim Ellis, co-founder and CEO of Relativity Space, tells The Verge. “That was the final infrastructure piece we need to have a clear path toward launching.”

Over the last year, Relativity has quickly established itself as a serious player in the commercial space industry. The company, which was founded in 2016, has raised more than $45 million in funding. It also has multiple workspaces in Los Angeles, and it’s currently using facilities at NASA’s Stennis Space Center in Mississippi to test the Aeon engine it’s been working on. As of now, Relativity has done 124 test fires of its rocket engine, in pursuit of launching the company’s first rocket by 2020.

[...] Relativity’s goal is to disrupt the entire process of manufacturing rockets. “For the last 60 years, the way rockets have been built hasn’t really changed,” says Ellis. Instead of relying on the traditional, complicated assembly line of machines and people sculpting and piecing together parts of a vehicle, Relativity wants to make building a rocket almost entirely automated. The trick? Using giant 3D printers that can create all of the parts needed to build a rocket — from the engines to the propellant tanks and structure.

Relativity Space Selected to Launch Satellites for Telesat

Relativity Space announces first launch contract, and it's a big one

The ambitious rocket company Relativity announced its first customer on Friday, the global satellite operator Telesat. The contract for flights on the Terran 1 rocket includes "multiple" launches, but Relativity chief executive Tim Ellis said he could not provide additional details.

[...] Relativity considers this a huge win because it offers another validation of its—and really, this is not an exaggeration—revolutionary approach to launch. The company aspires to use large 3D printers to manufacture nearly the entirety of a rocket, thereby automating the process and taking another step toward low-cost, launch-on-demand service. It's one thing for a private company to build a new rocket to launch small satellites, it's another to try and remake the manufacturing process as well.

Ellis said Telesat has been in discussions with Relativity for awhile, so the satellite operator has had good access to Relativity's launch technology. After this due diligence, Telesat chose Relativity in addition to previous deals with SpaceX, Arianespace, and Blue Origin. Effectively, Telesat has decided that Relativity's Terran 1 booster, with a capacity of 1.25 tons to low Earth orbit, has the right stuff to help launch a major low Earth orbit satellite constellation that will provide global broadband connectivity.

Previously: Relativity Space Leases Land at NASA's Stennis Space Center in Mississippi
Aerospace Startup Making 3D-Printed Rockets Now Has a Launch Site at America's Busiest Spaceport
Blue Origin to Provide Multiple Orbital Launches for Telesat

Related: Amazon Planning its Own Satellite-Based Broadband Service, with 3,236 Satellites in Low Earth Orbit


Original Submission

ULA's Vulcan Rocket Could be Delayed by BE-4 Engine Problems 12 comments

USA's efforts to stop relying on Russian-built rocket engines derailed by issues with Blue Origin's BE-4

Things aren't looking too good for a certain American-produced rocket engine, according to the US Government Accountability Office - and it isn't SpaceX's Merlin.

The June GAO Weapon Systems Annual Assessment report to Congress [PDF] makes grim reading for fans of billionaire-built space stuff. Noted by NASAWatch, the section of the report concerning the National Security Space Launch (NSSL) was clear about the challenges faced by a "US-produced rocket engine under development for ULA's Vulcan launch vehicle."

[...] The first stage, however, is also due to be powered by a pair of BE-4 engines, manufactured by Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin. These have yet to see action on the way to orbit. As well as ULA's new launcher, the engines also power Blue Origin's New Glenn, the maiden flight of which has been punted to the end of 2022.

The GAO report noted the "technical challenges" were related to "the igniter and booster capabilities required" and that there was a risk of qualification not being complete in time. The result could be a switch back to trusty Atlas V, which carries its own problems.

This news is two weeks stale, but oh well.

See also: GAO's annual review of DoD programs raises concerns on space launch, missile warning satellites
With ULA's new rocket Vulcan behind schedule, Space Force agrees to let Atlas 5 fill in


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 09, @10:22PM (7 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 09, @10:22PM (#1143728)

    Not sure I would trust a rocket 3d printed. Plastic doesn't hold up well to G-forces, or, you know, rocket fire.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 09, @10:54PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 09, @10:54PM (#1143732)

      These are 3D printed out of metal. Rocket Lab 3D prints their engines, so the basic idea is sound, but the economics of 3D printing the rocket body are questionable. Sheet metal tubes can be assembled quickly and cheaply. They are going to need some other advantage, such as integrated ribbing to save weight, to make it worthwhile.

      • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Thursday June 10, @08:18AM (3 children)

        by PiMuNu (3823) on Thursday June 10, @08:18AM (#1143831)

        Print on the Moon? Saves weight by factor 6. Less air resistance. Admittedly, need to mine the metal...

        • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday June 10, @04:46PM (2 children)

          by Immerman (3985) on Thursday June 10, @04:46PM (#1143936)

          Assuming you're using a Sadoway magma refinery, you could get the metal as a byproduct of extracting oxygen from the regolith, but at present there's no known ready source of lunar carbon, so you'd need to bring the methane from Earth anyway, the mass of which dwarfs the mass of the rocket itself... so there's not really a huge benefit to building the rocket on the moon. Especially since there's no valuable payload on the moon, so you're going to have to launch the rocket to Earth anyway, completely canceling the benefit of making it on the moon. Production weight is irrelevant - it's the mass that matters.

          Now, once we have a thriving orbital/Lunar/Martian economic ecosystem, then 3D printed rockets could have some serious benefits since they can eliminate much of the intermediate construction infrastructure.

          Except... maybe not so much Mars, at least in the near term. They're likely to have a glut of spaceships available for the forseeable future from all the imports form Earth, and almost nothing worth shipping back.

          And maybe not so much the moon either, since without an atmosphere linear accelerators are far more efficient than rockets for reaching orbit. They could be handy for launching payloads to the outer system... except that means either the payload needs to be made on the moon as well, likely eliminating the benefit of not needing intermediate infrastructure, or you need a rendezvous in orbit to transfer the payload from an Earth-to-orbit launcher, which is likely to be a bit of a headache, but potentially worthwhile to avoid "wasting" a much more powerful rocket launched into the outer system.

          Where it could be really handy though is the asteroid belt - if you're mining rare metals in the belt then you're likely to need a LOT of rockets to export your booty, potentially far more than the raw materials you're importing, and have plenty of common metals to print rockets from, as well as plenty of C/H/O to produce fuel.

          • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Friday June 11, @09:17AM (1 child)

            by PiMuNu (3823) on Friday June 11, @09:17AM (#1144203)

            Interesting. Why is there no Carbon on the moon?

            • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday June 11, @01:51PM

              by Immerman (3985) on Friday June 11, @01:51PM (#1144241)

              No idea, anyone else? Perhaps it's bound into heavier molecules that settled towards the core for some reason? Seems like volcanoes are a major carbon source on Earth over geologic timescales, which would suggest that something similar might happen here.

              Regardless, lunar regolith analysis has shown it to be various silicon and metal oxides - about 40% oxygen, 20% silicon, 13% iron, and progressively smaller amounts of calcium, aluminum, magnesium, and titanium, and 1% "other"

              There should be at least some carbon available from asteroids which could be excavated from impact craters, but that's a much more involved endeavor than just scooping up regolith into electrolytic magma refineries to extract oxygen, steel, etc.

              It may well be that any lunar colony has fossil fuels as one of its major imports - not for energy, but as a conveniently dense source of the carbon and hydrogen necessary for a growing ecology.

    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday June 10, @05:08PM (1 child)

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 10, @05:08PM (#1143952) Journal

      If I remember correctfully, SpaceX 3D prints their Draco engines. (The hypergolic engines on the side of Dragon 2 capsule used for emergency escape system.)

      Muck pointed this out a few years back in a video introducing and unveiling the Dragon 2 capsule.

      --
      Never use a needlessly simple solution to a problem when a much more complex solution would suffice.
      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday June 10, @05:11PM

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 10, @05:11PM (#1143953) Journal

        And 3D printed out of Inconel metal IIRC.

        SpaceX Reveals 3D-Printed Rocket Engine Parts [designnews.com]

        From this quote, I got one of my facts (above) wrong:

        The SuperDraco thruster engine is an advanced version of the current Draco engine that's used in SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft to maneuver in orbit and during re-entry.

        --
        Never use a needlessly simple solution to a problem when a much more complex solution would suffice.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 09, @10:30PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 09, @10:30PM (#1143730)

    Reusable rockets were already invented by SpaceX. What are these guys, Chinese IP thieves?

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 09, @11:01PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 09, @11:01PM (#1143734)

      The first reusable orbital rocket was the Shuttle, and Robert Goddard experimented with reusable suborbital rockets a hundred years ago. SpaceX didn't come up with the idea, they made it work.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 09, @11:09PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 09, @11:09PM (#1143735)

        Next you're going to tell us that Tesla didn't incent the electric car. Musk hater!

        • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday June 10, @05:13PM

          by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 10, @05:13PM (#1143954) Journal

          Tesla incented other auto makers to start building EVs.

          --
          Never use a needlessly simple solution to a problem when a much more complex solution would suffice.
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 10, @01:18AM (6 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 10, @01:18AM (#1143754) Homepage Journal

    They can 3D print the Aeon rocket engine. They've test fired that engine. To date, they have launched nothing. They HOPE to launch something in the 3rd quarter of 2021.

    You'll understand if I don't get terribly excited yet.

    --
    alles in Ordnung
    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 10, @02:15AM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 10, @02:15AM (#1143771)

      A working engine is the hardest part of building a working rocket. Considering that this is June, 3rd quarter starts next month. They've already leased a pad, so I would expect full-up static tests to start soon. Of course that is all for the Terran 1 and the article is about the R, but that still puts them ahead of the scam artists and into 'real rocket company' territory. And if they actually reach orbit, ahead of Blue Origin, too.

      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday June 10, @05:37PM (3 children)

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 10, @05:37PM (#1143971) Journal

        A working engine is the hardest part of building a working rocket.

        Consider problems with Blue Origin's BE-4 engine.

        Bezos' Blue Origin to deliver first flight-ready rocket engines next summer [reuters.com]
        Dec 17, 2020

        The chief executive of United Launch Alliance (ULA), a joint rocket venture between Boeing Co and Lockheed Martin Corp, said it expects to receive two new rocket engines from billionaire Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin by next summer.

        ULA, the Pentagon’s top launch contractor for national security satellites, had initially expected the shipment in 2020 for a debut flight in early 2021, but this was delayed by development hurdles.

        Now . . .
        GAO report identifies problems with Blue Origin BE-4 engine [rocketrundown.com]
        Jun 9, 2021

        A report published by the Government Accountability Office has revealed that the development of the Blue Origin BE-4 engine is experiencing “technical challenges.”

        United Launch Alliance announced that it selected the BE-4 engine to power its Vulcan rocket on September 27, 2018. The first stage of the next-generation rocket will be powered by two BE-4 methalox engines.

        ULA’s selection of the Blue Origin engine was the result of new legislation that bans the Department of Defense from procuring launch services aboard rockets powered by Russian RD-180 engines. This meant that ULA had to look closer to home for an engine for Vulcan or lose out on the chance to bid for lucrative national security missions.

        In July 2020, the first BE-4 rocket engine was delivered to the launch provider. Described as a development pathfinder by ULA CEO Tory Bruno, the engine was seen as the prelude to the imminent delivery of the first flight-ready BE-4 rocket engines. However, close to a year later and there are no flight-ready engines in sight.

        So let me summarize:
        * ULA's existing Atlas V rocket uses Russian engines
        * DoD is barred from using Russian engines after 2022, which means no more using Atlas V
        * ULA bet its future Vulcan rocket on Blue Origin's BE-4 engine ("A working engine is the hardest part of building a working rocket.")
        * DoD gave ULA the lion's share of money and gave SpaceX the small portion because reasons
        * Blue Origin, despite being older than SpaceX, has yet to put anything into orbit, but is very excited and feverishly working toward sending Bezos on a sub orbital joyride
        * Blue Origin's BE-4 engine having "technical challenges" (see above article quote)
        * A prototype BE-4 delivered July 2020
        * Almost a year later (now) no fright certified BE-4 engine yet, GAO says "technical challenges"

        Observations:
        * If ULA can't get fright certified BE-4 engines, it can't get it's Vulcan rocket flying
        * ULA needs to launch a national security mission, but may have to use its existing and much more expensive Atlas V instead.
        * But this would have to be done by the end of 2022 for legal reasons

        Questions:
        * Even if Blue Origin could deliver fright certified BE-4 engines today, could ULA get its new Vulcan rocket working?
        * And tested! DoD rulez say that national security payloads can only fly on a rocket that has flown at least three times.
        * Can ULA even get Vulcan to have three successful flights by end of 2022?
        * Could SpaceX launch national security missions instead, even though they get less money
        * Would ULA's contract and relationship with DoD be on jeopardy?

        See how hard this is?

        Good luck to Relativity! One of the new-space companies.

        Hey Bezos: why did you hire people from old-space to ruin run Blue Origin?

        --
        Never use a needlessly simple solution to a problem when a much more complex solution would suffice.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 10, @09:06PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 10, @09:06PM (#1144069)

          I'm giving Blue Origin credit for their suborbital rocket since it does actually fly, and reliably at that, and Relativity hasn't quite reached that milestone yet since I don't think they've ever done a hop test.

          *If ULA can get some working engines then they should be able to get their rocket flying without much trouble. It is mostly finished and waiting for final integration testing.
          *Getting it flying on time is the big hurdle. They are already a year late and their launch cadence isn't very high but if they can get those engines soon, integration goes well, and if they move some Atlas payloads to Vulcan then they might still be able to squeeze it in.
          *The bigger question is if they can get enough working BE-4 engines for three flights by the end of 2022.
          *SpaceX is NSSL certified so if ULA falls through they can take over the contract. Expect major lawsuits if that happens, but this is why disparate redundancy is worth the extra cost.
          *If ULA can't fly Vulcan then that would put them in violation of the contract unless Congress gives them an extension on the Altas deadline. Their NSSL contract is known to have a clause allowing for such a situation. Not only could they lose their DoD preferred contractor status but the survival of the company could be put at risk.

          Yeah, it's hard, but the only reason ULA is in this position is that building their own engine is even harder.

          Blue Origin's problems run deeper than that: Bezos hired old-space because they seem to be the only people willing to work for him.

          • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday June 24, @03:08PM (1 child)

            by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 24, @03:08PM (#1148719) Journal

            I'm giving Blue Origin credit for their suborbital rocket since it does actually fly, and reliably at that

            Give them all the credit you want for their success with sub orbital joyrides.

            If ULA can get some working engines then they should be able to get their rocket flying without much trouble. It is mostly finished and waiting for final integration testing.

            I don't think it's so easy as "without much trouble". This it not like plugging a power supply in to a motherboard. Finished and awaiting integration testing sounds nice on paper or pixels, but doesn't mean everything will go smoothly without rapid unscheduled disassembly.

            My lack of confidence in Blue Origin is because:
            * they've been around longer than SpaceX
            * they are well funded
            * they deliberately and publicly claim to be the tortoise against SpaceX's hare
            * and their actions demonstrate that they are a tortoise
            * yet the hare (SpaceX) isn't taking a nap and continues to outpace the tortoise (Blue Origin)
            * BO's focus seems to continue to be on their successful sub orbital rocket -- they need to WAKE UP and MOVE ON. Abandon the sub orbital stuff and get to work on orbital with all of your resources.
            * despite embracing being the tortoise, BO seems all bent out of shape that NASA didn't give them the human lunar lander contract for more money, even though BO still can't put anything in orbit, and publicly embraces a "taking our sweet time" approach to development.

            Blue Origin's problems run deeper than that: Bezos hired old-space because they seem to be the only people willing to work for him.

            That may be true. If it is true, that says a lot about him as an employer.

            --
            Never use a needlessly simple solution to a problem when a much more complex solution would suffice.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 24, @08:39PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 24, @08:39PM (#1148898)

              Give them all the credit you want for their success with sub orbital joyrides.

              Giving credit where due or damning with faint praise. Take your pick, it cuts both ways.

              I don't think it's so easy as "without much trouble". This it not like plugging a power supply in to a motherboard. Finished and awaiting integration testing sounds nice on paper or pixels, but doesn't mean everything will go smoothly without rapid unscheduled disassembly.

              Point.

              **Tortoise and the Hare**

              BO is the Hare wearing a Tortoise suit because he doesn't understand why he lost. There was a time when they could have given SpaceX a run for their money. Instead they built a better Grasshopper and called it victory.

    • (Score: 5, Funny) by coolgopher on Thursday June 10, @02:31AM

      by coolgopher (1157) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 10, @02:31AM (#1143774)

      Well, when it comes to rocket engines, the term "vaporware" takes on a whole new meaning.

(1)