17 thoughts on “Raptor”

  1. What does this mean? Is the government just covering all the bases in the event that the Blue Origin engine does not make the cut?

    2. It is quite simple. One of the goals in the EELV program was to have two sources of launch services for the USAF. To prevent having times where launch services become unavailable because of hardware issues. Since ULA has decided to merge everything into Atlas V, it became important for the USAF to get some other source for launch services. Add to that the issues with RD-180 being manufactured in Russia, and you’ll see why it makes sense for them to invest in Raptor.

  2. This will be denounced by the usual whiners with SpaceX accused of doing everything with “your money.” Whiners that would have no qualms about getting the same sugar for themselves.

    The fact is this development money could have huge possible returns for the govt. and is the type of thing they do all the time. They got in this position by relying on foreign products that are defense related.

    Like getting essential electronics from China?

  3. The story doesn’t indicate whether or not this latest $40 million carries the same 2:1 matching obligation for SpaceX as did the Raptor-related contract awarded by USAF last year. In the latter case, SpaceX was going to develop Raptor anyway so getting some free government money along the way was welcome. SpaceX’s strategic goals and USAF’s motives, whatever they were, were in sync.

    But there was some ambiguous language in that original contract announcement about a new second stage for Falcon 9 and Heavy. SpaceX now has Raptor Jr. essentially ready to go. But a Raptor Jr.-powered 2nd stage – perhaps reusable – for F9 and FH isn’t on SpaceX’s critical path. The $40 million is probably USAF’s way of exercising an option that was probably in the original contract to get that stage designed and built for reasons of its own.

    Exactly what those might be, I haven’t a clue.

    1. SpaceX now has Raptor Jr. essentially ready to go. But a Raptor Jr.-powered 2nd stage – perhaps reusable – for F9 and FH isn’t on SpaceX’s critical path.

      But it would follow past history of using customers to pay for testing and development. It will be a while before BFR flies and they could get some good practice with the new engines while potentially lowering their costs a little bit more.

      1. Oh yeah, SpaceX will fulfill its contract. As SpaceX’s relationship with NASA grows more strained, its relationship with the NatSec community grows warmer.

        And no wonder. SpaceX doesn’t compete, even peripherally or by implication, with any program beloved of DoD, etc. That certainly isn’t true of NASA.

        Also, USAF is facing a significant challenge in the form of Rep. Rogers’s Space Corps proposal based on its long and shameful neglect of the space domain. Now that USAF is well over its initial inclination to think SpaceX wasn’t entirely for real, SpaceX allows USAF to get a lot more done in space at a much lower cost than its competitors.

        I think USAF is hoping to softsoap its critics and, by using SpaceX more heavily to save money, still be able to raid at least some of its ostensibly space-related appropriations for its favored aircraft boondoggles as has long been SOP. I think USAF is mistaken in thinking this, but mistaken thinking has a long tradition in the upper reaches of the U.S. military.

        As to the contract which is the subject of Rand’s post, upon further thought, I now suspect the USAF appetite for a Raptor Jr. FH upper stage may be simply a way of insuring a complete backup for Delta IV Heavy – which has never had one. I suspect there are USAF-ers who are more than a bit dismayed by ULA’s announced intentions of stockpiling cores for D-IV-H, then ending production. Some may even worry, now, that ULA may go under in the next few years. SpaceX can provide these folks with a security blanket at rather modest cost, so I think that’s what they’re buying here.

        1. This may not apply to the new engine but if SpaceX had a reusable upper stage and got to the point were they could to rapid turn around and/or had a large fleet of launchers, then the military could rapidly deploy large numbers of spaced based assets in the event they were needed.

          Having this capability would be great but the launch facilities might not be adequate.

  4. So if SpaceX continued the 2:1 funding, that puts funding at just under $400k through this program. I assume they spent more money of their own outside the program. How much is it going to cost to get RS-25 production up and going? I suspect that Raptor development plus setting up their facilities will cost less than restarting RS-25 production.

  5. The RS-68 (for Delta IV) development program cost the taxpayers $700 million in 1995 dollars, and they run about $20 million a copy. I seriously doubt if the Raptor costs anywhere near that amount. This is a bargain.

    1. RS-68 was a bargain when it came out. Back then it cost over a billion to design a new engine. Vulcain 1 cost $1.6 billion USD for example, while Vulcain 2, which was a mere upgrade of the design, cost >$500 million USD. RS-68 compares quite favorably with a Vulcain 1 engine.

      1. Ya gotta wonder why it costs so much since SpaceX hired their lead designer because he was making rocket engines in his garage? I realize they are dealing with high tolerances and exotic materials, but I simply don’t see the justification for such high development costs. I remember when a billion dollars was a chunk of change… and that prisoners of war made ten’s of thousands of rockets (V2s) under less than ideal conditions.

    2. I wouldn’t be surprised if Raptor cost more than $100 million to develop this far. But yes it seems to be a lot cheaper than past engine designs. Especially when you consider the complexity involved in a design like that. I think a lot of it can be attributed to an experienced design crew, with several gas-generator engine designs under their belt, the existence of test facilities which don’t need to be built, and their new engine simulation tools which retired a lot of risk in the design.

      2. And also their experience with reducing cost on Merlin. That has to help development as well, by reducing the cost of prototype components.

        I still want to know how they’re making their nozzles. Diffusion bonding of inner and outer shells to a core with machined coolant channels?

Comments are closed.