Author Topic: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread  (Read 1241776 times)

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1520
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 617
  • Likes Given: 211
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #1520 on: 02/25/2016 01:08 pm »
Sorry for making a duplicate thread, I'll post my massage again here. You'll understand I think this topic is in the wrong location.

Blue Origin updated their website with a section about BE-4. Link

Is it known when Blue will launch the New Shepard for the fourth time. Are they hold up by FAA licence approval because they want to take payloads on the fourth flight. Or did they discover something that has to be adjusted/ modified before the fourth flight. It has been more than a month since the third flight took place, and it looked like a perfect executed flight, so I don't get what is preventing other flights. (impatient).
« Last Edit: 02/25/2016 01:48 pm by Rik ISS-fan »

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1740
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #1521 on: 02/25/2016 02:06 pm »
Some goodies in there:
Quote
Save taxpayer money
The 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?

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #1522 on: 02/25/2016 03:00 pm »
Some goodies in there:
Quote
Save taxpayer money
The 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.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #1523 on: 02/26/2016 12:33 am »
This another BE-3?

2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline leaflion

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 103
  • United States
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #1524 on: 02/26/2016 01:44 am »
Yes.

Offline Stan-1967

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1128
  • Denver, Colorado
  • Liked: 1183
  • Likes Given: 614
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #1525 on: 02/26/2016 01:59 am »
Some goodies in there:
Quote
Save taxpayer money
The 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.

I was looking at an L2 presentation from Airbus/Safran regarding pricing of Ariane 6-2 vs. 6-4 configuration.   The difference was 15M Euro.   The difference in vehicle configuration is the addition 2 P120 SRB's. That works out to around $8M USD for each SRB.  Sounds about right if ATK has been able to reduce cost below Aerojet.

It would seem rational for BO to design a vehicle with excess margin and avoid the use of SRB's just as SpaceX has done.   

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #1526 on: 02/26/2016 10:07 am »
Some goodies in there:
Quote
Save taxpayer money
The 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?
Who is this message targeted at? Congress?  That's kind of how it reads to me...
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #1527 on: 02/26/2016 02:09 pm »
Who is this message targeted at? Congress?  That's kind of how it reads to me...
Pentagon decision makers and Congress, likely.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #1528 on: 02/26/2016 02:22 pm »
What does two BE-4's cost relative to one RD-180 and a solid?  Does anyone know?  3 billion over 20 years is about $150 million a year.  Then how many launches a year?  Are they factoring in reuse over this period of time also?  Opens a lot of questions for me. 

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 3429
  • Likes Given: 741
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #1529 on: 02/26/2016 02:40 pm »
What 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.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #1530 on: 02/26/2016 03:24 pm »
From different saving figures ULA and Blue have mentioned, I say around $15M for a pair. Which is about $10M cheaper than RD180,  plus 1xSRB less required.

BE4 supports autogenous pressurization which eliminates expensive He systems. A more knowledgeable member maybe able to guess how much this would save.
« Last Edit: 02/26/2016 03:25 pm by TrevorMonty »

Online ethan829

Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #1531 on: 02/26/2016 03:54 pm »
What 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.


Tory Bruno has mentioned on reddit that Blue Origin agreed to ULA's target cost for BE-4, although no mention of any specific number.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ula/comments/43v33x/be4_forgings_assemble_full_engine_testing_later/czq86eb
Quote
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.
« Last Edit: 02/26/2016 03:54 pm by ethan829 »

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 3429
  • Likes Given: 741
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #1532 on: 02/26/2016 04:12 pm »
Quote
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.
« Last Edit: 02/26/2016 04:20 pm by Kabloona »

Online ethan829

Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #1533 on: 02/26/2016 04:27 pm »
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.

You're probably right to be skeptical, I'd be shocked if Blue could exactly meet the target cost given that they've never developed an engine on this scale or using this technology before.

Although in the interest of speculation, Mr. Bruno also posted this 20 minutes ago, which claims that two BE-4s will cost less than a single RD-180:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ula/comments/47jsfy/new_be4_information_page_from_blue_origin/d0erahf
Quote
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.

Again, that's a target and could easily change, but it's nice to know the ballpark figures.
« Last Edit: 02/26/2016 04:28 pm by ethan829 »

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 3429
  • Likes Given: 741
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #1534 on: 02/26/2016 04:43 pm »
Based on what SpaceX has said about their M1D production cost, if I had to take a WAG, I'd guess
Blue's BE-4 cost target was $10M per engine, so $20M per pair, and $5M less than an RD-180.

Doesn't sound unreasonable judging from what SpaceX has been able to accomplish on M1D with 3-D printing, etc.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #1535 on: 03/03/2016 01:16 am »
Quote from: Jeff Foust
McAlister: unfunded CCDev space act agreement with Blue Origin set to end this month; could be extended again.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/705107802637774848
« Last Edit: 03/03/2016 01:16 am by yg1968 »

Online Eric Hedman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2313
  • The birthplace of the solid body electric guitar
  • Liked: 1953
  • Likes Given: 1143


Offline GreenShrike

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 276
  • Liked: 321
  • Likes Given: 682
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #1538 on: 03/09/2016 04:51 pm »
Some tidbits from the Ars Technica article:

BE-4 chamber pressure is 1950 psi, and it's aimed at being reusable for 25 missions.

BE-4 was originally 400 klbs of thrust but ULA wanted a bigger engine, so Blue re-scoped the engine to 550 klbs.

Orbital ATK is working with Blue to develop engines for its upper stage.
TriOptimum Corporation            Science
                                      Military /_\ Consumer

Offline kch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1758
  • Liked: 496
  • Likes Given: 8807
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #1539 on: 03/09/2016 04:59 pm »
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%2Fstory

Since it is his newspaper I'm shocked they got this story :o

Why are you shocked?  If he's ready to talk, why wouldn't he talk to his own people & have the article published in (as the article noted) his own paper?  Seems sensible to me.  :)

Tags:
 

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