BETA
This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here

More From Forbes

Edit Story

The Bezos Effect: ULA Use Of Blue Origin Rocket Engines Would Mean Big Changes

Following
This article is more than 9 years old.

Last week, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) awarded big contracts to Boeing and Space Exploration Technologies Corporation -- SpaceX -- for development of capsules that can carry U.S. astronauts into orbit.  Their work will play a pivotal role in reducing U.S. reliance on Russian space technology as the human spaceflight program progresses into the post-Shuttle era.  However, the capsule awards weren't the big surprise of the week for space community insiders.  That came the following day when the government's leading provider of launch services announced it would team with a non-traditional space company started by internet entrepreneur Jeff Bezos to develop the next generation of U.S. rocket engines.

Nobody saw that coming, even though government-funded United Launch Alliance (ULA) and privately-funded Blue Origin had been working together on efforts such as NASA's capsule program since their inception.  What stunned many observers was that ULA, a Boeing- Lockheed Martin joint venture with a nearly flawless record of lofting military and intelligence satellites into orbit, would team with a relatively untested startup to replace the Russian RD-180 engines that power its most important launch vehicle.  Reliance on the RD-180 became controversial following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and Congress is contemplating legislative mandates that would fast-track development of an American-built successor.

(Disclosures: Boeing, Lockheed Martin and engine-maker Aerojet Rocketdyne contribute to my think tank; Lockheed Martin is a consulting client.)

ULA didn't just pick an unexpected partner for its future engines, it picked an unexpected technology.  Like the RD-180, the BE-4 engine Blue Origin has been developing for three years would be an "oxygen-rich, staged-combustion" engine of the type that experts say represents the future of space launch (all the engines currently built in the U.S. rely on older technologies developed a generation ago).  But the BE-4 would use liquefied natural gas -- LNG -- as its fuel in combination with liquid oxygen, and that's something that hasn't been done before.  Blue Origin says LNG, a commercially available form of methane, would be relatively inexpensive and eliminate the need for complex pressurization systems used in existing engines.

Maybe so, but Joel Achenbach of the Washington Post captured the surprise of many space community members at the announcement of the teaming arrangement when he characterized the tie-up as "a historic partnership between 'Old Space' and 'New Space'."  What he meant was that ULA traces its roots back to the early days of the Cold War and has a culture mirroring the folkways of its federal customer, whereas Blue Origin like SpaceX is an entrepreneurial enterprise that seeks to greatly reduce the cost and complexity of getting into space.  Bezos and SpaceX founder Elon Musk are space enthusiasts who see a bright future for mankind beyond the Earth, at a time when the political culture is often said to be lacking in imagination.  For them space isn't just a business, it's a calling.

Partnering with Blue Origin potentially solves a big problem for ULA by giving it an alternative to the RD-180, which is now reviled on a nearly daily basis by members of Congress despite an admirable record for reliability.  It also may help the launch alliance to begin evolving its image away from that of a high-cost, bureaucratic operation that charges too much for launch services to attract commercial customers.  SpaceX founder Musk has made much of how his company can deliver national security payloads into space at a lower price than ULA, and Congress typically is more attuned to cost than reliability in debating such matters.

With the death of Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos stands out as the preeminent entrepreneur of his generation -- a fact attested to by Harvard Business School rankings.  But Musk is a close second, given his impressive success with the Tesla electric-car line and dogged determination to shake up the space business (he is also a major player in solar energy).  Not surprisingly, early coverage of the ULA-Blue Origin partnership has tended to focus on the "dueling billionaires" aspect of the rivalry that may now emerge between Blue Origin and SpaceX.  However, the government launch customer will be less interested in the personalities involved than the processes and technologies, and there ULA still has some explaining to do because its disclosures to date have not fully fleshed out how the partnership will function.

For starters, using liquefied methane and oxygen in the new engines -- there would be two engines per booster -- necessarily entails cryogenic handling.  That means significant changes to the design of the Atlas first stage and ground infrastructure.  So while LNG would simplify the challenge of pressurizing tanks, it would complicate other aspects of the launch system.  In that regard, it is important to bear in mind that rocket engines are not the same thing as launch vehicles, and ULA hasn't spelled out what kind of vehicle it will build to accommodate the new engines.  The media materials released at last week's rollout of the teaming arrangement stated, "the details related to ULA's next generation vehicles... will be announced at a later date."

Another issue is the handling of competition-sensitive information when a commercial partner is involved.  One price ULA has paid for its monopoly of national security launches is a degree of transparency with regard to operations and intellectual property that many commercial enterprises would find unsettling.  Blue Origin has been secretive about its operations in the past and apparently that practice is not going to end.  For instance, the companies said last week that use of the BE-4 engine will save launch customers a considerable amount of money, but in discussing the cost of engine development stated, "the cost is proprietary and we are not able to publicly disclose."

An additional issue is the precise plan for funding development of the engine.  ULA chief executive Tory Bruno told reporters at last week's press conference that it typically takes seven years and a billion dollars to develop a new liquid-fuel rocket.  Bezos is thought to have sunk about half that amount into Blue Origin since its founding, but much of the money went to items other than the BE-4 engine.  So who is going to pay the remaining development costs, not just for building and testing the engine but also for integrating it into a launch vehicle and ground infrastructure?  If ULA is paying a sizable portion of the price-tag then the money would presumably be coming from revenues generated in its government launch program -- which could bring federal scrutiny.

The biggest question of all, though, is how long the government is willing to tolerate continued reliance on the Russian RD-180 rocket.  ULA and Blue Origin say their new engine will be ready for flight in 2019, which is an eternity in politics.  And ready for flight is not the same thing as being certified for launching national security payloads, as SpaceX can attest.  In the most likely scenario, ULA does not anticipate having a successor to the RD-180 on the launch pad and ready to go for the better part of a decade.  If Moscow continues its provocations in Ukraine and elsewhere, that will undoubtedly impact the sense of urgency about finding new rocket engines to help launch sensitive payloads.

The people who run United Launch Alliance and Blue Origin may already have detailed answers to all these questions.  Whether they do or not, though, they have changed the conversation about how the United States can maintain a viable domestic launch capability.  The biggest challenge they face going forward may not be technological or financial but political, because election cycles unfold every two years at the federal level and Congress can turn on a dime when provoked.  It takes a lot longer to work through all the steps of designing, developing, testing, integrating and certifying a next-generation rocket engine.  So even if the technology is mature and the financing is secure, politics assures that there will always be risk in the rocket business -- no matter what path is chosen.