The key question: does this fact about jet engines also hold for rocket engines?
If so, increasing a turbopump rocket engine power just 10% to 15% cuts engine life in half. And conversely, decreasing it by 10% to 15% doubles engine life. And if so, would this still work if we repeated the concept multiple times? If we reduced the thrust by .9^5 = .60, i.e., to 60%, which most turbopump engines can manage, then we could increase the lifetime by a factor of 2^5 = 32 times? Then a Merlin engine with a lifetime of, say, 30 reuses by running it only 60% power could have its lifetime extended to 1,000 reuses?
This would be in the range of number of reuses of the type of jet engines used on long haul flights. Rocket engines with that number of reuses probably also would allow “gas and go” operation. That is, no major refurbishment needed in between flights, as with jet engines.
Is reduced temperature the key?
In examining this question of rocket engine longevity versus jet engine longevity I once hypothesized it had to do with the high temperatures rocket engines operated at, typically ca. 3,000 °C, whereas jet engines might only operate at ca. 1,200 °C to 1,500 °C.
It might be thought it would be the high pressures of rocket engines but that can’t be the primary reason since automobile diesel engines can operate at hundreds of bars of pressure, above even that of rocket engines for many hours of service:
The pump pressures in rockets are impressive, but let's not forget that the injection system in modern diesel engines operate at 2500 bar. They are also fast enough to accomplish up to eight separate fuel injections with each cylinder cycle.
Bosch CRS3-25.
https://youtu.be/T7o2hvoJE-Q
About 31 minutes in Elon suggests the current version V1 would be capable of 40 to 50 tons to orbit. This is bad because SpaceX sold NASA on the idea the Starship HLS could serve as an Artemis lander based on 150 tons to orbit reusable and “10ish” refueling flights. If the capability is max 50 tons, then it would take “30ish” refueling flights.
If they intend to use version V2 then this is bad because it would require further qualification flights for the larger version and more importantly further qualification of the more powerful Raptor 3 engine needed.
This last is doubly bad because I’d be willing to bet dollars to donuts that they never informed NASA that the current version couldn’t do it and further development would be required for the larger version.
SpaceX needs a true Chief Engineer. Elon once said that early on when there were still doubts about its viability, they tried to recruit a Chief Engineer for SpaceX but no one good was willing to come. So Elon designated himself Chief Engineer. It is not a role Elon is well suited for. A good Chief Engineer should be scrupulously forthright. He would not refer to the little 5 or 10 second static burns SpaceX does for the SuperHeavy or Starship as "full duration".
A true Chief Engineer would be aware that "full duration" in the industry is short for "full mission duration". These static fires in the industry are conducted at the full length and the full thrust of an actual flight and are meant to give confidence to potential customers that the engines can perform as expected for the promised capabilities of the launchers.
However, SpaceX in using the term "full duration" for these little few-second burns, doesn't even tell the public, or its major customer NASA for which they have a billion-dollar contract, if these little burns are even conducted at full thrust.
This has had majorly negative consequences. The FAA had great concerns in the Raptor reliability after the first test flight. In the "corrective actions" they required of SpaceX prior to a second Starship test flight, at the top of the list was correcting the tendency of the Raptor of leaking fuel and catching on fire while in flight.
I have argued multiple, independent lines of evidence suggest SpaceX intentionally reduced the throttle of the Raptors on the booster on the second test flight, IFT-2, to improve reliability of the engines:
Running an engine at reduced throttle reduces the pressure levels within the engine, high pressure being a major cause of engine fuel leaks. The Starship upper stage though was run at near full throttle on IFT-2, perhaps because performance would be reduced too much if it also was run at reduced throttle.
The result was the booster engines worked fine, at least on ascent, while the Starship exploded on ascent on IFT-2. SpaceX has said the Starship RUD was due to an intentional LOX dump they performed to keep that flight as suborbital. However, many knowledgeable observers doubted the LOX dump alone would have caused a RUD. They argue due to the tendency of the Raptor to leak fuel, it's more likely that plus the LOX dump caused the RUD.
For the third test flight, IFT-3, after reviewing both propellant burn rates and the acceleration profile of the flight, I'm suggesting SpaceX learned their lesson from the second test flight, and this time both stages were run at reduced throttle on this flight. And this time both stages were able to complete the ascent stage of the flight successfully.
However, this does reduce the payload capability of the launcher. Elon has acknowledged this radically reduced payload capability in his recent update. But it needs to be explained by SpaceX why the payload is so greatly reduced. If it is because the Raptor needs to be run at reduced thrust in order to be reliable then that is an extremely important thing to acknowledge, and to inform NASA on it, because the thrust levels of a rocket go into assessing what its actual capabilities are.
There is another very important issue about Raptor reliability. Multiple times a Raptor has undergone a RUD doing a relight during prior testing of the Starship planned landing procedure. And on this last Superheavy/Starship test flight as well Raptors underwent a RUD during the booster landing procedure. The boostback back burn appeared to have occurred successfully. But there was venting gas after the bostback back burn suggesting there may have been a fuel leak here as well.
Note for a successful reuse of the Starship and booster, successful relights have to occur both for boostback burns and landing burns. Then in none of the prior Starship landing tests nor of the Superheavy/Starship flight tests have any flights shown successful Raptor relights without leaking fuel and catching fire, and often undergoing a RUD.
SpaceX has called one test of the Starship landing test, SN15, successful because it managed to land without exploding. But it is important to note even in that test a Raptor leaked fuel and caught fire prior to landing. It's just on that test SpaceX managed to extinguish the fire before the ship exploded:
Note that in the SpaceX plans for a reusable Starship it absolutely can not work if the Raptor can not be made to relight reliably. SpaceX in not publicly providing full mission duration, full thrust testing information on the Raptors have not shown this also for relights of the Raptor.
That is why it is so important for a launch company to publicly provide details on full mission duration, full thrust level static engine testing.
SpaceX needs a true Chief Engineer to provide such details in a forthright manner.
ArianeSpace Needs to Transition to Reusability to Survive.
European space advocates have been lamenting that there seems to be no near term route to keeping up with SpaceX, getting reusable launchers, and towards achieving manned space flight. However, in point of fact ESA already has the components to form a launcher comparable to the Falcon 9 and at lower price, while keeping pace with SpaceX in reusability, and in manned spaceflight.
All it would require is someone, anyone in the Europeans space community to ask the impertinent question, "How much would it cost to add a 2nd Vulcain to the Ariane 5/6?"
For once that question is asked, and ArianeSpace forced to answer honestly, they would have to admit it could be done for only a development cost in the range of only ~$200 million. But then it would become obvious how to proceed.
First, note that the Ariane 6 that was planned to compete with the SpaceX Falcon 9 has been pushed back to 2024, when its original launch date was in 2020, extending the time where SpaceX is cornering the market. Note also the Ariane 6 will not be reusable. In fact ArianeSpace has admitted they won't be fielding a reusable launcher until the 2030's.
ULA was driven to the brink of bankruptcy by denying the importance of reusability. There is little doubt the same will happen to ArianeSpace if they wait a decade to field a reusable vehicle. Independent European space observers have also made this point about the choice of the non-reusable Ariane 6:
Europe’s lack of rocket ‘audacity’ leaves it scrambling in the space race European policymakers want to stop SpaceX from dominating the launch market. BY JOSHUA POSANER JANUARY 15, 2021 12:28 PM CET 6 MINUTES READ That 2014 decision haunts French Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire, who keeps a warning of that moment on his desk. “The European space adventure is magnificent, but in 2014 there was a fork in the road, and we didn’t take the right path,” Le Maire told a conference last September. “We should have made the choice of the reusable launcher. We should have had this audacity.” https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-arianespace-rocket-space-race/
The Fast Route to Reusability.
The problem with reusability for the Ariane 5 and 6 is they use solids for a large portion of their takeoff thrust. These large side boosters also make up a large portion of the cost. In fact, the situation has actually gotten worse with the Ariane 6. But the Space Shuttle program demonstrated you don't save on reuse with solid side boosters. By the time you fish the SRB's out of the ocean, tow them to port, transport them from port back to the manufacturing facility, clean them out from all the burnt on combustion products, and then finally refill them with propellant, the cost is no better than just using new ones to begin with. A little thought makes it easy to see why. Solid side boosters are just a filled in metal pipe. The cost of that metal pipe is small compared to all the processing involved in making the SRB. Keeping the same metal pipe but increasing all the needed steps for processing does not reduce the cost of the SRB.
So to get the low cost reusable rocket you have to dispense with the SRB's. Necessarily that means you have to use additional liquid-fueled core engines. Then is adding an additional core engine a multi-billion dollar, or euro, development?
No! I was quite startled to find JAXA was able to add an additional hydrolox engine to the H-II first stage for only an approx. $200 million development cost.
See the highlighted passage in this article where the cost to add another engine to the H-II was only 27 billion Yen, about $200 million:
But that means instead of the multi-billion current development cost of the Ariane 6, the same could have been accomplished for just a few hundred million and would also have been reusable! I made this point here:
Thus the importance of asking that impertinent question of ArianeSpace, "How much to add an additional Vulcain to the Ariane 5/6?"
WHY Are the Far More Expensive SRB's Used Rather then the Cheaper Liquid-fueled Engines?
Knowledgeable ESA observers have been aware for awhile now that the ESA policies for distributing funds and costs to the differing member states do not result in the most cost effective vehicles. It’s a policy called geographical-return that requires member states costs to be apportioned by some set proportion of the billion dollar development costs. So if some member states have been contributing some large proportion of the costs through solid side boosters, that cost continues to be part of the development for new rockets or upgrades.
The governments of the member states regard this as a good thing because it helps to keep active, and paid, the space industries and space industry employees in their countries. But another key reason why some member states like the funds for the ESA to go to develop solid rocket side boosters is because those funds help also to develop solid rockets for their defense programs. So rather than those countries having to pay the entire cost of the solid rocket missiles in their defense programs on their own, some portion of that is actually paid for by the ESA in developing solid rocket side boosters for space launchers.
You can see why there is a great incentive for those member states, which have great influence on the direction and funding choices for the ESA, to continue to want to use solid rocket boosters in all launchers produced by the ESA.
This suggests, as a first order estimate, that we can take the cost of two SRB’s as €40M. But the cost of a single Vulcan is only €10 million! So the two SRB’s on the Ariane 6 base version costs 4 times more than an additional Vulcain! Therefore, again as a first order estimate, we can take the cost of a two Vulcain Ariane 6 with no SRB’s as only €45 million, ~$50 million. This compares quite favorably to current $67 million cost of the Falcon 9.
The reason why this isn’t done can not be attributed to some supposed multi-billion development cost to add an additional Vulcain to the Ariane core. Actually, it’s the current plan for the Ariane 6 with the newly developed solids, new upper stage, and new Vinci engine whose development cost is in the $4+ billion range. It’s really quite stunning to realize the same could have been accomplished at only a ~$200 development cost simply by adding another Vulcain to the Ariane 5 core, using the same original cryogenic upper stage. Nearly a factor of 20 times cheaper!
But nobody knows this because nobody asks that one simple question, “How much would it cost to add a second Vulcain to the Ariane 5/6?”
Now, once you have the all-liquid Ariane 6 that costs even cheaper than the Falcon 9, you can also keep up with SpaceX in reducing price by reusability by also reusing the core stage via powered landing a la the F9 booster. Again, the solids in the current Ariane 6 version would not save on reusing them as the Space Shuttle program abundantly showed. So that huge €40 million cost just for the SRB’s on the Ariane 6(more than the cost of the entire rest of the rocket!) out of the total €75 million would be fixed no matter how many times you wanted to reuse the core.
It might be argued that even a fully throttled down single Vulcain would have too much thrust for a hovering landing. Actually, this is the case also with the Falcon 9. It uses what SpaceX calls "hover-slam" for landing. The thrust is precisely timed so the booster just reaches 0 velocity as it touches down. Actually, I'm not a fan of "hover-slam". Much better for the Ariane case would be to use two Vinci engines for the landing only. It is designed to be air-startable and restartable. It weighs without the nozzle extension for vacuum use only 160 kg. So two would weigh only 320kg on the first stage. It's use would allow true hovering landing for the first stage.
Three Vulcains on the Ariane 5/6 Match the Falcon 9 in Payload at a Lower Price.
The two Vulcain Ariane 5/6 would have lower payload than the Falcon 9. But it would be quite competitive for the lucrative geosynchronous transfer orbit(GTO) used by many communications satellites, at ~6,000 kg to GTO at lower price than the F9. The F9 is at about 8,000 kg to GTO. But most satellites don't need this full capacity anyway.
However, if we used three Vulcains we could then match the Falcon 9 in payload and still be at lower price. This comes from again using the first order estimate of€40 million for the two SRB's. So the Ariane 6 with no SRB's would be €35 million, as a first order estimate. So adding on two Vulcains would be €55 million, as a first order estimate. But this is still less than the $67 million price for the Falcon 9.
In an upcoming blog post I'll discuss further the three Vulcain case showing it can match the Falcon 9 in payload. Intriguingly, by using multiple copies of such 3 Vulcain cores, I estimate 4 to 6, you can also get a 'superheavy' lift vehicle capable of 100-tons to LEO, a 'moon rocket'. Using multiple copies of already existing cores allows you to get the 'superheavy' lift at far less development cost than the $20 billion of the SLS, or the $10 billion of the ill-conceived Superheavy/Starship.
Manned Launchers.
Finally, in regards to manned launchers, just use the all-liquid Ariane 6 since you no longer have the safety issues of using SRB’s on manned launchers.
The SLS was planned to have a large upper stage called the Exploration Upper Stage(EUS). This would take the SLS Block 1 to the SLS Block 1B, needed for a single flight lunar architecture. However, the multi-billion dollar cost for development of a large upper stage from scratch means it’s unlikely to be funded.
NASA is proposing a solution using the Starship making separate flights. But this plan takes 6 flights total or likely more of the Superheavy/Starship for the Starship to fly to the Moon to act as a lander. One look at this plan makes it apparent it’s unworkable:
Actually, it’s likely to be more complex than portrayed in the figure, needing 8 to 16 refueling flights. This is what SpaceX submitted to NASA in proposing the plan, requiring 6 months to complete the Starship refueling:
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk details orbital refueling plans for Starship Moon lander. By Eric Ralph Posted on August 12, 2021 First, SpaceX will launch a custom variant of Starship that was redacted in the GAO decision document but confirmed by NASA to be a propellant storage (or depot) ship last year. Second, after the depot Starship is in a stable orbit, SpaceX’s NASA HLS proposal reportedly states that the company would begin a series of 14 tanker launches spread over almost six months – each of which would dock with the depot and gradually fill its tanks. … In response to GAO revealing that SpaceX proposed as many as 16 launches – including 14 refuelings – spaced ~12 days apart for every Starship Moon lander mission, Musk says that a need for “16 flights is extremely unlikely.” Instead, assuming each Starship tanker is able to deliver a full 150 tons of payload (propellant) into orbit after a few years of design maturation, Musk believes that it’s unlikely to take more than eight tanker launches to refuel the depot ship – or a total of ten launches including the depot and lander. https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-elon-musk-starship-orbital-refueling-details/
Everyone, remember the Apollo missions where we could get to the Moon in asingle flight? In fact, this would be doable with the SLS given a large upper stage. Then the suggestion is for the ESA to provide a Ariane 5 or 6 as the upper stage for the SLS. It would save on costs to NASA by ESA paying for the modifications needed for the Ariane core.
As it is now ESA is involved in a small role in the Artemis lunar program by providing the service module to the Orion capsule. But it would now be playing a majorrole by providing the key upper stage for the SLS.
The argument might be made that the height of the Ariane 5/6 is beyond the limitations set forth by NASA for the EUS. However, if you look at the ca. 30 m height of Ariane 5 core compared to the 14 m height of the interim cryogenic upper stage now on the SLS, this would put the total vehicle height only a couple of meters beyond the height that had already been planned for the SLS Block 1B anyway:
Coming up: ESA also could provide a low cost lander for the Artemis program.
Payload Estimates
Here’s the Silverbird Astronautics estimates for the payload capacity using the Ariane 5 as the upper stage. The vacuum Isp used for the Ariane 5 is taken as 462 s since it it known by the example of the RL10 engine that a hydrogen engine can have its vacuum Isp raised to this level by a nozzle extension. Specifications shown below, with the 5-segment SRB data estimated by 25% scale up of the Space Shuttle SRB’s data.
And the results for the LEO payload:
The estimated payload for TLI is found by putting -1.0 in for the hyperbolic C3 value for “Escape trajectory” field. This is a number that indicates it’s just below escape velocity for a free return trajectory around the Moon in case the mission has to be aborted.
So both the LEO payload of 150 tons and the TLI payload of 60 tons are above even the Block 2 payload capacity that would use advanced carbon fiber casing for the SRB’s.
