In the rapidly evolving landscape of the space industry, launch vehicle providers face a critical decision when it comes to sourcing their rocket engines. They can either choose to develop the engines in-house or procure them from external suppliers, including established aerospace companies and the emerging cohort of rocket engine startups. This choice carries significant implications for the cost, timeline, and overall success of their launch vehicle programs.

The decision to buy engines from external suppliers or develop them in-house is not a new one in the space industry. Historically, many launch providers have relied on established aerospace companies to provide engines for their vehicles. For example, United Launch Alliance’s Atlas V rocket uses the RD-180 engine, which is manufactured by Russia’s NPO Energomash. However, the rise of new space startups has introduced a new dynamic to this decision-making process.

These startups, often backed by venture capital and driven by a desire to disrupt the traditional aerospace industry, are developing innovative engine designs that promise improved performance, reliability, and cost-effectiveness. They are leveraging advanced manufacturing techniques, such as 3D printing and the use of novel materials, to create engines that are lighter, more efficient, and easier to produce than traditional designs.

For launch providers, partnering with these startups can offer a range of potential benefits, from reduced development costs and faster timelines to access to cutting-edge technologies. However, relying on a relatively unproven supplier for such a critical component also carries significant risks, including dependency on a single supplier, limited flight heritage, and potential integration challenges.

This article explores the pros and cons of procuring rocket engines from startups and established companies, as well as the factors that launch providers must consider when making this decision. This article will also take a closer look at some of the companies currently offering rocket engines for sale, examining their technologies, track records, and potential impact on the future of the space industry.

The Case for Procuring Engines from Startups

Reduced Development Costs and Timelines

Developing rocket engines is a highly complex, expensive, and time-intensive process. It requires significant investments in research and development, specialized facilities and equipment, and a highly skilled workforce. For many launch providers, particularly those operating on tight budgets or timelines, these upfront costs can be prohibitive.

By outsourcing engine development to specialized suppliers, launch providers can bypass the substantial upfront investments in research and development, as well as the lengthy development cycles associated with designing and testing in-house engines. This approach enables them to bring their launch vehicles to market more quickly and at a lower overall cost.

Startups, in particular, often operate with lean, agile teams and are able to iterate on designs more quickly than established aerospace companies. They are also more likely to embrace new technologies and manufacturing methods that can streamline the development process and reduce costs.

For example, Ursa Major, a Colorado-based startup, has developed a line of engines that use 3D-printed components and a novel engine cycle that allows for a more compact and lightweight design. By leveraging these technologies, the company claims to have reduced the development time for its engines by up to 50% compared to traditional methods.

Access to Cutting-Edge Technologies

Rocket engine startups often position themselves at the forefront of innovation, harnessing advanced technologies and manufacturing methods to push the boundaries of engine performance. These companies frequently leverage cutting-edge approaches such as 3D printing, advanced materials, and digital engineering to create engines with improved efficiency, reliability, and thrust-to-weight ratios.

3D printing, in particular, has emerged as a game-changer in rocket engine development. This additive manufacturing technique allows for the creation of complex, lightweight components that would be difficult or impossible to produce using traditional methods. By 3D printing engine components, startups can reduce the number of parts required, minimize assembly time, and create designs that are optimized for performance.

For example, Relativity Space, a startup that is developing a fully 3D-printed rocket, has used this technology to create an engine that consists of just 100 parts, compared to the thousands of parts required for a traditional engine. This simplification of the design not only reduces manufacturing costs but also improves reliability by minimizing the potential points of failure.

Other startups are exploring the use of advanced materials, such as ceramic matrix composites and high-entropy alloys, to create engines that can withstand higher temperatures and pressures. These materials have the potential to significantly improve engine performance and enable new mission capabilities, such as reusability and deep space exploration.

By partnering with these startups, launch providers can gain access to state-of-the-art engine designs that can give their vehicles a competitive advantage in terms of payload capacity, reliability, and cost per launch. They can also benefit from the rapid pace of innovation in the startup world, as these companies continue to push the boundaries of what is possible in rocket engine technology.

Focusing on Core Competencies

Outsourcing engine development allows launch providers to concentrate their resources and expertise on the overall vehicle design and system integration, rather than getting bogged down in the highly specialized domain of propulsion. This division of labor enables each company to play to its strengths, with the engine startup focusing on optimizing propulsion technology while the launch provider ensures seamless integration and overall vehicle performance.

For many launch providers, particularly those that are relatively new to the industry, developing in-house expertise in rocket engine design and manufacturing can be a daunting challenge. It requires significant investments in personnel, facilities, and equipment, as well as a deep understanding of the complex physics and engineering principles involved.

By partnering with a specialized engine supplier, launch providers can tap into a pool of existing expertise and resources, allowing them to focus on their core competencies of vehicle design, manufacturing, and operations. This can be particularly valuable for small and medium-sized launch providers that may not have the scale or resources to support a full-fledged engine development program.

Furthermore, by relying on an external supplier for engines, launch providers can benefit from economies of scale and the potential for standardization across the industry. If multiple launch providers use the same engine design, it can lead to reduced costs, improved reliability, and a more robust supply chain.

The Risks of Relying on Startup Suppliers

Dependency on a Single Supplier

When a launch provider relies on an external company, particularly a startup, for such a critical component, it introduces a degree of risk and dependency into their supply chain. Any financial instability, technical setbacks, or manufacturing issues experienced by the engine company could have cascading effects on the launch provider’s timeline and overall success.

Startups, by their very nature, are often operating on tight budgets and are subject to the whims of investors and market conditions. If a startup engine supplier runs into financial difficulties or is unable to secure additional funding, it could jeopardize the launch provider’s access to engines and disrupt their launch schedule.

Technical setbacks are also a common occurrence in the development of new rocket engine technologies. While startups may be able to iterate and innovate more quickly than established companies, they are also more likely to encounter unexpected challenges and delays. If an engine supplier encounters a significant technical hurdle, it could force the launch provider to delay their vehicle development or explore alternative options.

Manufacturing issues, such as quality control problems or supply chain disruptions, can also have a significant impact on a launch provider’s operations. If an engine supplier is unable to deliver engines on time or to the required specifications, it could force the launch provider to delay their launches or make costly modifications to their vehicle design.

In contrast, in-house development allows the provider to maintain complete control over the engine development process and mitigate these external risks. While it may require a larger upfront investment and longer development timeline, it can provide greater certainty and flexibility in the long run.

Limited Flight Heritage

Most rocket engine startups have relatively limited flight heritage compared to established aerospace companies. Their engines may still be in the development phase or have only a few successful launches to their credit. Entrusting such a critical system to a relatively unproven supplier carries inherent risks compared to working with an established company or an experienced in-house team with a track record of successful engine development and operation.

Flight heritage is a critical factor in the space industry, as it demonstrates the reliability and performance of a particular technology or system. When a launch provider is evaluating potential engine suppliers, they will typically place a high value on flight heritage, as it provides tangible evidence of the engine’s capabilities and durability.

For startups, building flight heritage can be a catch-22 situation. They need successful launches to prove the viability of their technology, but they may struggle to secure customers without a proven track record. This can make it difficult for startups to break into the market and compete with established suppliers.

Launch providers that choose to work with a startup supplier are essentially taking a leap of faith, betting on the potential of the technology and the capabilities of the team behind it. While this can be a risky proposition, it can also offer significant rewards if the startup is able to deliver on its promises and establish a strong track record of success.

To mitigate the risks associated with limited flight heritage, launch providers can take a number of steps when working with startup suppliers. These may include:

• Conducting thorough due diligence on the startup’s technology, team, and financial stability
• Requiring the startup to meet specific performance and reliability benchmarks before committing to a long-term partnership
• Structuring contracts to include performance incentives and risk-sharing provisions
• Maintaining close communication and collaboration with the startup throughout the development and testing process

By taking a proactive and risk-aware approach, launch providers can potentially reap the benefits of working with innovative startups while minimizing the potential downsides.

Integration Challenges

Integrating an externally sourced engine with the rest of the launch vehicle presents a complex set of challenges. Even with a well-designed engine, some degree of customization and optimization is often necessary to ensure seamless integration with the unique specifications of the launch vehicle. This requires close collaboration and a transparent flow of information between the engine supplier and the launch provider to address any compatibility issues and optimize overall vehicle performance.

The integration process typically involves a number of key steps, including:

1. Defining the interface requirements between the engine and the vehicle, including mechanical, electrical, and fluid connections
2. Conducting detailed analyses to ensure that the engine’s performance characteristics are compatible with the vehicle’s mission requirements and flight profile
3. Developing and testing any necessary adapters, fairings, or other integration hardware
4. Conducting integrated system tests to verify the performance and functionality of the combined engine and vehicle

Each of these steps requires close coordination between the engine supplier and the launch provider, as well as a deep understanding of the technical requirements and constraints of both systems.

For startups, the integration process can be particularly challenging, as they may have limited experience working with a variety of vehicle configurations and may not have the same level of resources and expertise as established aerospace companies. This can lead to delays, cost overruns, and technical issues that can impact the overall success of the launch program.

To mitigate these risks, launch providers and startups must work together to establish clear lines of communication, define roles and responsibilities, and develop a shared understanding of the technical requirements and challenges involved. This may involve embedding engineers from the launch provider within the startup’s development team, or establishing regular technical reviews and milestone meetings to ensure that both parties are aligned and making progress towards their shared goals.

Ultimately, the success of any engine integration effort will depend on the strength of the partnership between the launch provider and the engine supplier, as well as their ability to work together to overcome any technical challenges and deliver a reliable, high-performing system.

Companies Currently Selling Rocket Engines

Several companies, both established aerospace firms and newer startups, are currently offering rocket engines for sale to launch providers. Some notable examples include:

• Blue Origin: Blue Origin’s BE-4 engine, which runs on liquefied natural gas and liquid oxygen, has been selected to power United Launch Alliance’s Vulcan rocket. The BE-4 is a high-performance engine that is designed to be cost-effective and reliable, with a focus on reusability. Blue Origin has also developed the BE-3 engine, which powers its New Shepard suborbital vehicle, and is working on the BE-7 engine for its Blue Moon lunar lander.
• Ursa Major: This Colorado-based startup is developing a line of engines, including the Hadley and the Ripley, which use kerosene and liquid oxygen propellants. Ursa Major’s engines are designed to be adaptable to a range of launch vehicles and are being marketed to other companies in the space industry. The company has a focus on rapid development and testing, with a goal of reducing the cost and complexity of rocket engine production.
• Firefly Aerospace: Firefly’s Reaver engine, which powers the first stage of its Alpha launch vehicle, uses a combination of kerosene and liquid oxygen. The Reaver engine is designed to be simple and reliable, with a focus on low-cost manufacturing and rapid production. Firefly has indicated its willingness to sell the Reaver engine to other launch providers, as well as developing larger engines for future vehicles.
• Northrop Grumman: Northrop Grumman is a well-established aerospace company that produces a range of solid rocket motors for civil, defense, and commercial rockets. Their solid rocket motor offerings include the CASTOR, Graphite Epoxy Motor (GEM), and Orion motor families. These motors have been used on a variety of launch vehicles and have supported numerous successful missions.
• Aerojet Rocketdyne: Aerojet Rocketdyne is another major player in the rocket engine market, with a long history of providing propulsion systems for both government and commercial customers. They offer a wide range of liquid and solid propulsion solutions, including the RS-25 engine, which powers the Space Launch System, and the RL10 engine, which has been used on the Atlas and Delta launch vehicles.

These companies represent a diverse range of approaches to rocket engine development, from the innovative technologies and business models of startups like Ursa Major and Firefly Aerospace, to the proven expertise and capabilities of established firms like Northrop Grumman and Aerojet Rocketdyne. As the commercial space industry continues to grow and evolve, it is likely that we will see even more companies entering the market and offering new engine designs and capabilities.

Discussion

The decision to procure rocket engines from a startup, an established company, or develop them in-house is a complex one for launch vehicle providers, with significant pros and cons to consider. While startup suppliers offer the potential for reduced costs, faster development timelines, and access to innovative technologies, they also come with risks related to dependency on a single supplier, limited flight heritage, and integration challenges. Established companies, on the other hand, bring proven expertise and flight heritage, but may not offer the same level of innovation or cost savings as startups.

As the commercial space industry continues to evolve and mature, the viability and long-term success of different engine procurement models will be tested. Launch providers will need to carefully weigh the potential benefits and risks, taking into account their specific needs, resources, and risk tolerance. Ultimately, the approach that offers the best balance of cost, schedule, and performance will likely emerge as the preferred choice for each individual company.

However, it is clear that the diversification of the rocket engine market, with both startups and established players offering a range of propulsion solutions, is driving innovation and competition in the industry. As these companies continue to advance their technologies and prove their capabilities, they have the potential to enable new possibilities for space exploration and commercialization.

For launch providers, the key will be to find the right balance between the benefits of external procurement and the risks of relying on a third-party supplier. This may involve a hybrid approach, where engines are procured from different sources for different vehicles or missions, while in-house development is pursued for others. It may also involve closer partnerships and collaboration between launch providers and engine suppliers, to ensure that both parties are aligned and working towards a shared vision of success.

Regardless of the specific approach taken, it is clear that the decision to buy or build rocket engines will remain a critical one for launch providers in the years to come. As the space industry continues to evolve and new technologies and business models emerge, companies will need to remain agile and adaptable, always seeking the best path forward to achieve their goals and push the boundaries of what is possible.