Last year, Blue Origin successfully launched and landed its suborbital rocket, the New Shepard, five times within less than a year, flying just past the 62-mile edge of space and then landing vertically on a landing pad at the company’s West Texas facility.That same technology could be used to land the Blue Moon vehicle on the lunar surface, the company said. Its white paper shows what looks like a modified New Shepard rocket, standing on the moon with an American flag, a NASA logo and Blue Origin’s feather symbol.
The New Shepard, set to begin flying humans this year, is the basis for the Blue Moon concept, Bezos said. Its BE-3U upper stage engine, a high-altitude variant of the hydrogen-fueled BE-3 that took the first New Shepard booster to space five times in 2016 without a change-out, would send the lander into its trans-lunar injection trajectory. It would retain enough capability after that to begin slowing the vehicle toward its target on the lunar surface, he said.Like New Shepard, Blue Moon would land tail-down, braking with retropropulsion from a set of 11,000-lb.-thrust liquid oxygen/methane engines already in development at Blue Origin’s Kent, Washington, facility, Bezos said.
From the Av Week article posted by Navier-Stokes:http://www.aviationweek.com/space/blue-origin-developing-10000-lb-lunar-polar-landerQuoteThe New Shepard, set to begin flying humans this year, is the basis for the Blue Moon concept, Bezos said. Its BE-3U upper stage engine, a high-altitude variant of the hydrogen-fueled BE-3 that took the first New Shepard booster to space five times in 2016 without a change-out, would send the lander into its trans-lunar injection trajectory. It would retain enough capability after that to begin slowing the vehicle toward its target on the lunar surface, he said.Like New Shepard, Blue Moon would land tail-down, braking with retropropulsion from a set of 11,000-lb.-thrust liquid oxygen/methane engines already in development at Blue Origin’s Kent, Washington, facility, Bezos said.So why is it using Methalox for the landing thrusters, instead of Hydrolox all the way? Is it because the Methalox suffers from less boiloff compared to Hydrolox? Are there any other reasons? I don't think there's any way to harvest Methane from the lunar surface, is there?
Quote from: sanman on 03/06/2017 07:39 pmFrom the Av Week article posted by Navier-Stokes:http://www.aviationweek.com/space/blue-origin-developing-10000-lb-lunar-polar-landerQuoteThe New Shepard, set to begin flying humans this year, is the basis for the Blue Moon concept, Bezos said. Its BE-3U upper stage engine, a high-altitude variant of the hydrogen-fueled BE-3 that took the first New Shepard booster to space five times in 2016 without a change-out, would send the lander into its trans-lunar injection trajectory. It would retain enough capability after that to begin slowing the vehicle toward its target on the lunar surface, he said.Like New Shepard, Blue Moon would land tail-down, braking with retropropulsion from a set of 11,000-lb.-thrust liquid oxygen/methane engines already in development at Blue Origin’s Kent, Washington, facility, Bezos said.So why is it using Methalox for the landing thrusters, instead of Hydrolox all the way? Is it because the Methalox suffers from less boiloff compared to Hydrolox? Are there any other reasons? I don't think there's any way to harvest Methane from the lunar surface, is there?The BE3U will do the TLI and de orbit burn, doubt it would throttle low enough for lunar landing. They needed smaller engines for landing, plus these engines could be used to hover for last minute course changes. Being Methane means they could be used in 2nd stage of NG for orbital maneuvers and maybe for landing in future. Wouldn't be surprised if these methane engines are a spin off of BE4 development. As for harvesting Methane, these landers are destined for a one way trip, at least until water is being harvested and processed into fuel. Which is quite a few years and cargo landers away.
Quote from: sanman on 03/06/2017 07:39 pmSo why is it using Methalox for the landing thrusters, instead of Hydrolox all the way? Is it because the Methalox suffers from less boiloff compared to Hydrolox? Are there any other reasons? I don't think there's any way to harvest Methane from the lunar surface, is there?BE-4 engines are 500klbf staged combustion engines (50x larger and much too complex for a lander).BE-3 are 10x larger and simpler (though hydrolox)... if anything, a BE-3 derivative. More likely is pressure-fed or pump-fed, simple engines.
So why is it using Methalox for the landing thrusters, instead of Hydrolox all the way? Is it because the Methalox suffers from less boiloff compared to Hydrolox? Are there any other reasons? I don't think there's any way to harvest Methane from the lunar surface, is there?
Quote from: AncientU on 03/06/2017 11:13 pmQuote from: sanman on 03/06/2017 07:39 pmSo why is it using Methalox for the landing thrusters, instead of Hydrolox all the way? Is it because the Methalox suffers from less boiloff compared to Hydrolox? Are there any other reasons? I don't think there's any way to harvest Methane from the lunar surface, is there?BE-4 engines are 500klbf staged combustion engines (50x larger and much too complex for a lander).BE-3 are 10x larger and simpler (though hydrolox)... if anything, a BE-3 derivative. More likely is pressure-fed or pump-fed, simple engines.I'm thinking the thrusters are actually being developed for New Glenn booster and 2nd stage RCS. Makes sense for those to be methalox.
Quote from: GWH on 03/07/2017 04:22 pmQuote from: AncientU on 03/06/2017 11:13 pmQuote from: sanman on 03/06/2017 07:39 pmSo why is it using Methalox for the landing thrusters, instead of Hydrolox all the way? Is it because the Methalox suffers from less boiloff compared to Hydrolox? Are there any other reasons? I don't think there's any way to harvest Methane from the lunar surface, is there?BE-4 engines are 500klbf staged combustion engines (50x larger and much too complex for a lander).BE-3 are 10x larger and simpler (though hydrolox)... if anything, a BE-3 derivative. More likely is pressure-fed or pump-fed, simple engines.I'm thinking the thrusters are actually being developed for New Glenn booster and 2nd stage RCS. Makes sense for those to be methalox.Second stage control should be much smaller thrusters. Draco thrusters are <100lbf.First stage could use larger thrusters -- quite a mass to reorient for reentry, but wouldn't need to be quick unless they are considering RTLS. A single superdraco is 16,000 lbf, so about the right category for the lander; still might be too big for attitude control.Whatever thrusters are used, it they are methlox, thumbs up!
What propulsion will it use?
Quote from: sanman on 03/03/2017 10:05 pmWhat propulsion will it use?Not a pump-fed engine. Or an electric pump, perhaps.
Quote from: savuporo on 03/07/2017 06:59 pmQuote from: sanman on 03/03/2017 10:05 pmWhat propulsion will it use?Not a pump-fed engine. Or an electric pump, perhaps.And why NOT pump-fed? Smaller pumpfed engines have been developed. The Fregat stage is pumpfed but half the thrust. Do you have any evidence that it's not pump-fed? If it's just your opinion, say so. Don't state it as if it's a fact.
The lander would be “launch-vehicle agnostic,” able to lift off from Earth on NASA’s heavy-lift Space Launch System (SLS), the United Launch Alliance Atlas V; the reusable New Glenn orbital launcher Blue Origin is developing, and even the Falcon Heavy under development by reusable-launch rival SpaceX.Bezos said the lander’s payload would be scalable, with an SLS launch enabling 10,000 lb. to the lunar surface and smaller payloads on less capable launchers achieved by reducing the propellant load and number of descent engines.