Save taxpayer moneyThe BE-4 saves taxpayers an additional $3 billion in national security launch costs over 20 years by providing higher thrust – 1.1 million pounds versus 860,000 pounds for the RD-180 – which enables a greater payload capability and allows for the removal of a solid rocket motor at more than $10 million per flight for comparable missions.
Some goodies in there:QuoteSave taxpayer moneyThe BE-4 saves taxpayers an additional $3 billion in national security launch costs over 20 years by providing higher thrust – 1.1 million pounds versus 860,000 pounds for the RD-180 – which enables a greater payload capability and allows for the removal of a solid rocket motor at more than $10 million per flight for comparable missions.Vulcan has 2 BE-4 engines so it is likely that they mean a pair of BE-4s offer 1.1 million pounds of thrust. Does an SRM really cost over $10 million?
Quote from: notsorandom on 02/25/2016 02:06 pmSome goodies in there:QuoteSave taxpayer moneyThe BE-4 saves taxpayers an additional $3 billion in national security launch costs over 20 years by providing higher thrust – 1.1 million pounds versus 860,000 pounds for the RD-180 – which enables a greater payload capability and allows for the removal of a solid rocket motor at more than $10 million per flight for comparable missions.Vulcan has 2 BE-4 engines so it is likely that they mean a pair of BE-4s offer 1.1 million pounds of thrust. Does an SRM really cost over $10 million?The New Worlds Observatory mission had each SRB on an Atlas V 5x1 as an 10M additional cost. This was 2007 dollars, I believe. But, apparently, OrbitalATK got ULA a significant cost reduction. This is final user cost, not OrbitalATK price.
Who is this message targeted at? Congress? That's kind of how it reads to me...
What does two BE-4's cost relative to one RD-180 and a solid? Does anyone know?
Quote from: spacenut on 02/26/2016 02:22 pmWhat does two BE-4's cost relative to one RD-180 and a solid? Does anyone know?Does Blue Origin even know, given (1) they aren't even in production yet, and (2) cost per unit will depend on volume, which is also unknown?Maybe a reasonable cost estimate could be made by taking SpaceX's stated cost for M1D (IIRC they said something like $2M) and scaling by thrust. But it's a different fuel operating on a different cycle, so even that cost scale-up may be invalid.
BE4 is our primary path because it started first, is fully funded, and Blue has signed up to our target cost. AR1 is our back up because engines are complicated, risky, and BE4 will be the largest methane engine ever built (so there's technical risk). I plan to downselect after BE4's full scale static testing in about a year. That's when we'll know if the technology will work and can be on schedule.
Tory Bruno has mentioned on reddit that Blue Origin agreed to ULA's target cost for BE-4
Probably not a guaranteed price to ULA, since Blue can't know yet what it will cost them to produce. So if it's not guaranteed, it can change. In other words, "we think we can hit $10M per engine and we'll do our best to get there, but we won't really know until the design is finalized and we go into production."Which is functionally equivalent to "we don't really know yet." Or am I being too cynical/realistic?Not a criticism, just saying I don't think anyone really knows what the cost will be yet, targets or no targets.
However, as a pair, BE4 or AR1 will offer around 30% more thrust than a single RD180. The pair will cost less than a single RD180 and with increased tank size, there will be fewer SRMs for the same mission.
McAlister: unfunded CCDev space act agreement with Blue Origin set to end this month; could be extended again.
A new article in the Washington Post on Blue Origin:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/03/08/why-jeff-bezos-is-finally-ready-to-talk-about-taking-people-to-space/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_blue-origin-730pm%3Ahomepage%2FstorySince it is his newspaper I'm shocked they got this story