I have tried to estimate the payload mass, and I get something like 60 tons for the two-stage version with some reasonable (I hope) guesstimates on things we do not know (structural mass, specific impulse of BE-4, etc.). I attach the spreadsheet for support, comments welcome.
Quote from: Bynaus on 09/12/2016 03:44 pmI have tried to estimate the payload mass, and I get something like 60 tons for the two-stage version with some reasonable (I hope) guesstimates on things we do not know (structural mass, specific impulse of BE-4, etc.). I attach the spreadsheet for support, comments welcome.I doubt they would get 0.95 propellant ratios with the big tanks needed for this low-density propellant. I estimated 0.90. Also, they are using staged combustion engines, which weigh a bit more than gas generator engines for the same thrust. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 09/12/2016 03:51 pmQuote from: Bynaus on 09/12/2016 03:44 pmI have tried to estimate the payload mass, and I get something like 60 tons for the two-stage version with some reasonable (I hope) guesstimates on things we do not know (structural mass, specific impulse of BE-4, etc.). I attach the spreadsheet for support, comments welcome.I doubt they would get 0.95 propellant ratios with the big tanks needed for this low-density propellant. I estimated 0.90. Also, they are using staged combustion engines, which weigh a bit more than gas generator engines for the same thrust. - Ed KyleI see! That would give 40 tons, alright.But then, propellant ratios should grow with rocket diameter because loads and areas grow with the square of diameter but volume (fuel/oxidizer) grows with the third power of the diameter. I have to admit I am not an expert at all, it was just fun to play with the numbers.
New Armstrong is believed to be a BFR deep into the future. Not confirmed, but I'm "told" that the answer to the question is they are only naming rockets after astronauts.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 09/12/2016 03:11 pmNew Armstrong is believed to be a BFR deep into the future. Not confirmed, but I'm "told" that the answer to the question is they are only naming rockets after astronauts.your sources might be accurate, but the New Armstrong could be the single engine BE-4 launcher ULA hinted at.
How may the new rockets possibly affect ULA and SpaceX? Are they going for the same customers? What possible affect will this have for the A6?
I wonder how ULA feels about this? This seems like a vehicle that could cover virtually all Vulcan payloads.
Quote from: Lars-J on 09/12/2016 04:32 pmI wonder how ULA feels about this? This seems like a vehicle that could cover virtually all Vulcan payloads.If the two-engine rocket can lift the payload, it beats the seven-engine rocket on cost every time. (Assuming the same engines, as in this case). - Ed Kyle
Quote from: Lars-J on 09/12/2016 04:32 pmI wonder how ULA feels about this? This seems like a vehicle that could cover virtually all Vulcan payloads.If the two-engine rocket can lift the payload, it beats the seven-engine rocket on cost every time. - Ed Kyle
With the same engines being used by both NG and Vulcan, I'd say there might be a chance of synergy instead of pure competition. ULA and Blue Origin might agree to avoid each other's target vendors and exchange parts. ULA might focus chiefly on LEO and smaller payloads in general while Blue Origins targets GEO and BEO and larger payloads. Of course this is just conjecture.