Author Topic: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine  (Read 1149750 times)

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5975
  • Liked: 1312
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
« Reply #480 on: 10/21/2017 09:48 am »
Is a heat-sink nozzle and a regenerative cooled nozzle not the same think?

I thought the regeneratively cooled nozzle specifically has the fine channels to route the liquid propellant through, to cool the nozzle. Meanwhile the heat sink nozzle would simply have heat sink drawing off the heat, without particularly involving the propellant.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
« Reply #481 on: 10/21/2017 04:47 pm »
Is a heat-sink nozzle and a regenerative cooled nozzle not the same think?

I thought the regeneratively cooled nozzle specifically has the fine channels to route the liquid propellant through, to cool the nozzle. Meanwhile the heat sink nozzle would simply have heat sink drawing off the heat, without particularly involving the propellant.
Yes that's pretty much it.
Sometimes test engines may use a heat sink nozzle when they're not being fired for very long.
« Last Edit: 10/21/2017 04:54 pm by Patchouli »

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
« Reply #482 on: 10/21/2017 05:39 pm »
Looks like a good, stable burn. Few artifacts, and more than enough to begin a considerable test program. Impressive even at 50% power. It wouldn't surprise if this engine surpasses RD-191 before the end of this year, and reaches 3MN before the next year is out.

I though they were targeting 2.45 MN as operational thrust. Is 122% a standard margin? Will they try to take it higher?

Yes - ULA needed considerably more thrust (and margin) than Blue was originally after, thus a larger engine and fewer for NG as a result. Would also expect that they are expecting to gradually increase chamber pressure beyond afterward.

(The engine seems "over scaled" for  what they want/claim for it.)

[...]  it seems to me a good idea to wait to shelve it  [the AR-1] until BE-4 has not only hit that full thrust mark, but racked up some serious firing time.
I'm not a rocket designer, but if I was ULA I'd find 10 seconds at full thrust pretty convincing, much more so than full duration at any lesser power setting.   Of course you need both, but at these power levels the engine should reach equilibrium pretty quickly.   Running at less than full power is no guarantee the engine will survive higher, more stressful, settings.   But if it runs for 10 seconds at full power, it should be more or less straightforward to make it run for 10 minutes.

So if I was ULA, I'd ask BO to step power first, to find any design weaknesses, so I could make a quick decision.  Then they can optimize for duration.

Note we're not seeing start-up/shutdown, just the in between. Likely that's the big concern at the moment (also the big success!).

So as they sequence/prove and increase stable mass flows/combustion with appropriate shutdown/tale off, then they'll look at wear patterns (OR), make changes, then go for more.

A big concern is that an engine of this size have model-able operations, where the combustion is uniform and not chaotic. Less of a concern is the experience of the team, more of the concern is the nature of these propellants stable combustion during sequencing/cycle.

You can meet your thrust/duration targets and still have an unacceptable operation of an engine. So it has to work fully, for the right reasons, repeatably ... for signoff.

There were some good reasons for why it took so long with RS-68, but none of those are likely here. The two aren't comparable.

From the artifacts present, suggest chamber pressure is the limiting factor in some form at the moment.

Offline zhangmdev

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 156
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
« Reply #483 on: 10/21/2017 06:24 pm »
Does the portion of fuel passes through the regen-cooled nozzle also pass through the pre-burner?

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
« Reply #484 on: 10/21/2017 07:12 pm »


Yes - ULA needed considerably more thrust (and margin) than Blue was originally after, thus a larger engine and fewer for NG as a result. Would also expect that they are expecting to gradually increase chamber pressure beyond afterward.

(The engine seems "over scaled" for  what they want/claim for it.)


I suspect they probably were originally aiming for 2X Merlin 1D thrust levels.


« Last Edit: 10/21/2017 07:30 pm by Patchouli »

Offline mnelson

  • Member
  • Posts: 46
  • Salt Lake City, Utah
  • Liked: 80
  • Likes Given: 199
Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
« Reply #485 on: 10/21/2017 11:20 pm »


Yes - ULA needed considerably more thrust (and margin) than Blue was originally after, thus a larger engine and fewer for NG as a result. Would also expect that they are expecting to gradually increase chamber pressure beyond afterward.

(The engine seems "over scaled" for  what they want/claim for it.)


I suspect they probably were originally aiming for 2X Merlin 1D thrust levels.

Why would Merlin thrust levels be relevant when setting BE-4 goals?

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
« Reply #486 on: 10/22/2017 12:23 am »


Yes - ULA needed considerably more thrust (and margin) than Blue was originally after, thus a larger engine and fewer for NG as a result. Would also expect that they are expecting to gradually increase chamber pressure beyond afterward.

(The engine seems "over scaled" for  what they want/claim for it.)


I suspect they probably were originally aiming for 2X Merlin 1D thrust levels.

Why would Merlin thrust levels be relevant when setting BE-4 goals?

I mostly used it for comparison  but I suspect their original goal was 1,500 kN  to 2,000 kN.
« Last Edit: 10/22/2017 12:24 am by Patchouli »

Offline ChaoticFlounder

  • Member
  • Posts: 23
  • Bluffton, SC
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
« Reply #487 on: 10/22/2017 09:31 pm »
does anyone know if they've released more information on it?

Do we know what they changed to make this engine go boom how it's supposed to?

C

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
« Reply #488 on: 10/23/2017 06:49 pm »
Looks like a good, stable burn. Few artifacts, and more than enough to begin a considerable test program. Impressive even at 50% power. It wouldn't surprise if this engine surpasses RD-191 before the end of this year, and reaches 3MN before the next year is out.

I though they were targeting 2.45 MN as operational thrust. Is 122% a standard margin? Will they try to take it higher?

Yes - ULA needed considerably more thrust (and margin) than Blue was originally after, thus a larger engine and fewer for NG as a result. Would also expect that they are expecting to gradually increase chamber pressure beyond afterward.

(The engine seems "over scaled" for  what they want/claim for it.)

Blue was originally targeting 400 klbf (1800 kN). They upped it to 550 klbf (2450 kN) to sell it to ULA. Why would they need to fire it at 675 klbf (3000 kN)?

Agree that it does seem oversized for 2450 kN and Blue is probably reserving performance.

Offline Katana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
« Reply #489 on: 10/25/2017 01:46 pm »
Does the portion of fuel passes through the regen-cooled nozzle also pass through the pre-burner?
Usually yes.
Preburner have a separated small kick pump for higher pressure beyond main fuel flow.

Offline ZachF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1610
  • Immensely complex & high risk
  • NH, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 2604
  • Likes Given: 531
Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
« Reply #490 on: 10/25/2017 04:24 pm »
Looks like a good, stable burn. Few artifacts, and more than enough to begin a considerable test program. Impressive even at 50% power. It wouldn't surprise if this engine surpasses RD-191 before the end of this year, and reaches 3MN before the next year is out.

I though they were targeting 2.45 MN as operational thrust. Is 122% a standard margin? Will they try to take it higher?

Yes - ULA needed considerably more thrust (and margin) than Blue was originally after, thus a larger engine and fewer for NG as a result. Would also expect that they are expecting to gradually increase chamber pressure beyond afterward.

(The engine seems "over scaled" for  what they want/claim for it.)

Blue was originally targeting 400 klbf (1800 kN). They upped it to 550 klbf (2450 kN) to sell it to ULA. Why would they need to fire it at 675 klbf (3000 kN)?

Agree that it does seem oversized for 2450 kN and Blue is probably reserving performance.

This engine does seem to have lots of upgrade potential just like the old Merlin.

Upgrading to ~200bar in a future model would have thrust in the 3.7MN range...  :o
artist, so take opinions expressed above with a well-rendered grain of salt...
https://www.instagram.com/artzf/

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
« Reply #491 on: 10/25/2017 06:09 pm »
Looks like a good, stable burn. Few artifacts, and more than enough to begin a considerable test program. Impressive even at 50% power. It wouldn't surprise if this engine surpasses RD-191 before the end of this year, and reaches 3MN before the next year is out.

I though they were targeting 2.45 MN as operational thrust. Is 122% a standard margin? Will they try to take it higher?

Yes - ULA needed considerably more thrust (and margin) than Blue was originally after, thus a larger engine and fewer for NG as a result. Would also expect that they are expecting to gradually increase chamber pressure beyond afterward.

(The engine seems "over scaled" for  what they want/claim for it.)

Blue was originally targeting 400 klbf (1800 kN). They upped it to 550 klbf (2450 kN) to sell it to ULA. Why would they need to fire it at 675 klbf (3000 kN)?

Agree that it does seem oversized for 2450 kN and Blue is probably reserving performance.

This engine does seem to have lots of upgrade potential just like the old Merlin.

Upgrading to ~200bar in a future model would have thrust in the 3.7MN range...  :o
Keep in mind that comparing a gas generator to ORSC, especially at this scale, isn't wise ...

History of Russian kerolox ORSC shows that raising chamber pressure isn't at all that rapid as Merlin 1's progression, by a 5-6x factor. Also, likelihood for "big booms" (perhaps like what delayed first firing) is extremely high.

There are a lot of reasons for this.

That said, suggest that the overwhelming direction for this engine team is "operational", not pushing to extremes (suggest Raptor is attempting exactly *this*). In fact they went out of their way in design to downplay chamber pressure to expedite this engine. So expect no more than 3MN peak for quite a while.

What instead -  large number of runs, considerable duration, multiple hardware sets under test concurrently, varying conditions of test runs. They want a six sigma matchup to prove no surprises and all conditions covered with significant operating data. And that's a ton of work in a short amount of time, all of it dangerous.

Doing anything more would be sub-optimal.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13999
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
« Reply #492 on: 10/25/2017 07:59 pm »
Quote
Jeff Foust
@jeff_foust
Gunderson: the first BE-4 test lasted as long as planned (although he didn’t say how long); team very excited. #vonbraun
8:34 pm · 25 Oct 2017

https://mobile.twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/923271615307309056
« Last Edit: 10/25/2017 08:00 pm by Star One »

Offline ChaoticFlounder

  • Member
  • Posts: 23
  • Bluffton, SC
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
« Reply #493 on: 10/26/2017 01:39 am »
[...]  it seems to me a good idea to wait to shelve it  [the AR-1] until BE-4 has not only hit that full thrust mark, but racked up some serious firing time.
I'm not a rocket designer, but if I was ULA I'd find 10 seconds at full thrust pretty convincing, much more so than full duration at any lesser power setting.   Of course you need both, but at these power levels the engine should reach equilibrium pretty quickly.   Running at less than full power is no guarantee the engine will survive higher, more stressful, settings.   But if it runs for 10 seconds at full power, it should be more or less straightforward to make it run for 10 minutes.

So if I was ULA, I'd ask BO to step power first, to find any design weaknesses, so I could make a quick decision.  Then they can optimize for duration.

The largest concern for them is combustion instability which I don't believe we have been able to completely model yet.  As an outsider looking in the stresses are fairly well understood and predictable, it's the fluid flow and combustion that poses the real challenge.

Reference NASA SP-194 to get a better understanding of the scale of what I'm talking about.

As always, ask if you have questions or need a better explanation.

C

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5975
  • Liked: 1312
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
« Reply #494 on: 10/27/2017 11:50 pm »
Quote
Jeff Foust
@jeff_foust
Gunderson: the first BE-4 test lasted as long as planned (although he didn’t say how long); team very excited. #vonbraun
8:34 pm · 25 Oct 2017

https://mobile.twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/923271615307309056

What's the reference to #VonBraun - is this part of the nomenclature like Shepard, Glenn, Armstrong?
What's it specifically referring to?

Offline Zardar

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 173
  • Limerick, Ireland
  • Liked: 130
  • Likes Given: 344
Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
« Reply #495 on: 10/28/2017 12:04 am »
Quote
Jeff Foust
@jeff_foust
Gunderson: the first BE-4 test lasted as long as planned (although he didn’t say how long); team very excited. #vonbraun
8:34 pm · 25 Oct 2017

https://mobile.twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/923271615307309056

What's the reference to #VonBraun - is this part of the nomenclature like Shepard, Glenn, Armstrong?
What's it specifically referring to?

"The Wernher von Braun Memorial Symposium is an annual event that features panel discussions and guest speakers reflecting government, industry, academia, business and international perspectives on space exploration."

http://astronautical.org/events/vonbraun/
https://www.facebook.com/AmericanAstronauticalSociety/

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39221
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32740
  • Likes Given: 8203
Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
« Reply #496 on: 10/31/2017 02:12 am »
Aviation Week article on the recent test.

http://aviationweek.com/space/blue-origin-fires-be-4-methane-fuel-rocket-engine

Not much new information. They did say they found the problem with the power pack failure and that it has been fixed. No information on what the failure is though.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
« Reply #497 on: 11/03/2017 03:24 pm »
There were some good reasons for why it took so long with RS-68, but none of those are likely here. The two aren't comparable.

From the artifacts present, suggest chamber pressure is the limiting factor in some form at the moment.
Wasn't RS68 the ablative cooled GG cycle LH2/LO2 for the Delta IV?

I'd guess ablative reuse would have been an issue.

Do you mean RS25, the SSME. There were 13 RUDs (of various levels of seriousness) getting it to flight. AFAIK It's still the only cryogenic SC (of any variant) to be developed in the US (before Blue and SX).
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8755
  • Liked: 4673
  • Likes Given: 768
Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
« Reply #498 on: 11/03/2017 03:46 pm »
There were some good reasons for why it took so long with RS-68, but none of those are likely here. The two aren't comparable.

From the artifacts present, suggest chamber pressure is the limiting factor in some form at the moment.
Wasn't RS68 the ablative cooled GG cycle LH2/LO2 for the Delta IV?

I'd guess ablative reuse would have been an issue.

Do you mean RS25, the SSME. There were 13 RUDs (of various levels of seriousness) getting it to flight. AFAIK It's still the only cryogenic SC (of any variant) to be developed in the US (before Blue and SX).
RS-68B LRE Upgrade with regenerative cooling was shelved after i believe the Critical Design Review because Constellation program was terminated and there wasn't another rocket that needed it because it was easier to take certain components of RS-68 to make an RS-25E. This has been discussed many times and doesn't need to be repeated again.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
« Reply #499 on: 11/03/2017 09:24 pm »
There were some good reasons for why it took so long with RS-68, but none of those are likely here. The two aren't comparable.

From the artifacts present, suggest chamber pressure is the limiting factor in some form at the moment.
Wasn't RS68 the ablative cooled GG cycle LH2/LO2 for the Delta IV?

I'd guess ablative reuse would have been an issue.

Do you mean RS25, the SSME. There were 13 RUDs (of various levels of seriousness) getting it to flight. AFAIK It's still the only cryogenic SC (of any variant) to be developed in the US (before Blue and SX).
RS-68B LRE Upgrade with regenerative cooling was shelved after i believe the Critical Design Review because Constellation program was terminated and there wasn't another rocket that needed it because it was easier to take certain components of RS-68 to make an RS-25E. This has been discussed many times and doesn't need to be repeated again.
Whenever I think of human rated engines canabalized from non human rated engines I think of the J-2X, with most parts from the RS68 or the RL10.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1