Quote from: Lars-J on 11/25/2015 09:46 pmThey can fight it to the end of time if they want, but people will keep using the abbreviated company name.If Musk can convince people that the abbreviation for Space Exploration Technologies Corporation is "SpaceX" then Bezos still has a chance to get "Blue" to catch on.
They can fight it to the end of time if they want, but people will keep using the abbreviated company name.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 11/25/2015 04:14 pmBlue is a decade behind, but it may be leapfrogging SpaceX on the propulsion side with BE-3 and BE-4.Not sure how you figure that. The Merlin 1D ithrust-to-weight ratio is the highest ever achieved for a rocket engine, has a 70-100% throttle capability, and has been constantly evolved and matured over more than a decade. For domestic use, which I would call Earth local space, the Merlin 1D is hard to beat on any metric.Plus SpaceX is well into developing their own methane fueled engine, the Raptor, which will have almost 3X the amount of thrust the BE-4 does.
Blue is a decade behind, but it may be leapfrogging SpaceX on the propulsion side with BE-3 and BE-4.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 11/25/2015 10:11 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 11/25/2015 04:14 pmBlue is a decade behind, but it may be leapfrogging SpaceX on the propulsion side with BE-3 and BE-4.Not sure how you figure that. The Merlin 1D ithrust-to-weight ratio is the highest ever achieved for a rocket engine, has a 70-100% throttle capability, and has been constantly evolved and matured over more than a decade. For domestic use, which I would call Earth local space, the Merlin 1D is hard to beat on any metric.Plus SpaceX is well into developing their own methane fueled engine, the Raptor, which will have almost 3X the amount of thrust the BE-4 does.BE-4 and BE-3 both have higher efficiency than Merlin. This will provide more payload, especially to deep space, for the same rocket mass. That means less thrust at liftoff, which means less money. The BE-3 deep throttling is also impressive and something that Merlin cannot do. - Ed Kyle
Financing differences:Revenue of Space X: 0.5BValuation of SpaceX: 12BShares of Musk: unknown, after lots of rounds.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 11/25/2015 10:54 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 11/25/2015 10:11 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 11/25/2015 04:14 pmBlue is a decade behind, but it may be leapfrogging SpaceX on the propulsion side with BE-3 and BE-4.Not sure how you figure that. The Merlin 1D ithrust-to-weight ratio is the highest ever achieved for a rocket engine, has a 70-100% throttle capability, and has been constantly evolved and matured over more than a decade. For domestic use, which I would call Earth local space, the Merlin 1D is hard to beat on any metric.Plus SpaceX is well into developing their own methane fueled engine, the Raptor, which will have almost 3X the amount of thrust the BE-4 does.BE-4 and BE-3 both have higher efficiency than Merlin. This will provide more payload, especially to deep space, for the same rocket mass. That means less thrust at liftoff, which means less money. The BE-3 deep throttling is also impressive and something that Merlin cannot do. - Ed KyleAgreed. There is so much more to determining how good an engine is besides its thrust to weight ratio. Honestly I don't recall any other engines ever being associated with a thrust to weight ratio besides the Merlin.
Like their founders Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, SpaceX and Blue Origin have differences in their respective approaches, strategies, and paths to the future.Whose seems likely to bear better fruit, extrapolating purely based on what we currently know of them?SpaceX seems to have interwoven iterative R&D flight-testing with immediate servicing of govt launch contracts and private payload launches, for revenue purposes. In that interest, it has sought to achieve orbital flight first, then reusability, and finally leaving crewed flight for last.Blue Origin has kept itself more private and undercover, while pursuing a focus on manned spaceflight for space tourism, along with reusability, while deferring higher orbital flight velocities for later. Meanwhile, it has signed R&D deals with other SpaceX competitors such as ULA with its specialization for cargo delivery, to defray costs.What are the various pro's and cons of the technical and business strategies of each?To me, one advantage in the Blue Origin approach may be the ability to rush into the mass market for space tourism sooner than SpaceX could. For basic space tourism, suborbital flight is all you need to start cashing in. Orbital spaceflight for tourism purposes may offer diminishing returns relative to the cost expenditure. Because suborbital brings spaceflight directly to the masses much sooner, then Blue Origin could get the early adopters and early enthusiasts who are willing to pay more to enjoy the experience sooner.What are the opinions on how the market for suborbital space tourism stacks up revenue-wise, in comparison to conventional satellite launches and ISS resupply? Perhaps only time will tell, and may throw up some surprises.
As human beings, Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are quite different, but in their roles in their business ventures there are probably more similarities than differences.
BE-4 and BE-3 both have higher efficiency than Merlin. This will provide more payload, especially to deep space, for the same rocket mass. That means less thrust at liftoff, which means less money. The BE-3 deep throttling is also impressive and something that Merlin cannot do. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 11/25/2015 10:54 pmBE-4 and BE-3 both have higher efficiency than Merlin. This will provide more payload, especially to deep space, for the same rocket mass. That means less thrust at liftoff, which means less money. The BE-3 deep throttling is also impressive and something that Merlin cannot do. - Ed KyleFrom the calculations upthread, New Shepard has an estimated empty mass of 10t, and holds about 30t of fuel. So the delta-V will be 421 * 9.8 * ln(4) = 5.7 km/sec. For the Falcon first stage, it's suspected the empty mass is about 30t, and it's known to hold 386t of fuel (without sub-cooling). So the total delta-V is 310*9.8*ln(416/30), or about 7.9 km/sec. So in terms of delta-v provided per stage, the stage using Merlin is far more efficient than the stage using a BE-3.
Quote from: LouScheffer on 11/26/2015 01:48 amQuote from: edkyle99 on 11/25/2015 10:54 pmBE-4 and BE-3 both have higher efficiency than Merlin. This will provide more payload, especially to deep space, for the same rocket mass. That means less thrust at liftoff, which means less money. The BE-3 deep throttling is also impressive and something that Merlin cannot do. - Ed KyleFrom the calculations upthread, New Shepard has an estimated empty mass of 10t, and holds about 30t of fuel. So the delta-V will be 421 * 9.8 * ln(4) = 5.7 km/sec. For the Falcon first stage, it's suspected the empty mass is about 30t, and it's known to hold 386t of fuel (without sub-cooling). So the total delta-V is 310*9.8*ln(416/30), or about 7.9 km/sec. So in terms of delta-v provided per stage, the stage using Merlin is far more efficient than the stage using a BE-3.The 10t dry mass seems high for 30t fuel. Centuar is 2t for 20t. The landing equipment does add weight but I doubt it is 5-7t. There doesn't appear to be any load on tank as weight from capsule support ring is transferred direct legs and engine section. I'm picking it uses autogenous, true gas and go with no He. The capsule gross weight is 8000lbs. Quote from Blue.
BE-4 and BE-3 both have higher efficiency than Merlin. This will provide more payload, especially to deep space, for the same rocket mass.
That means less thrust at liftoff, which means less money.
The BE-3 deep throttling is also impressive and something that Merlin cannot do.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 11/25/2015 10:54 pmBE-4 and BE-3 both have higher efficiency than Merlin. This will provide more payload, especially to deep space, for the same rocket mass. That means less thrust at liftoff, which means less money. The BE-3 deep throttling is also impressive and something that Merlin cannot do. - Ed KyleFor comparing Merlin and BE-3, engine efficiency (ISP) is a bogus metric, since the higher ISP of Be-3 is obtained with less dense fuel, requiring larger tanks. You can't just ignore this. Compare the Falcon first stage to New Shepard, both designed to take off from the ground and reach a 100 km or so altitude. The ISP of BE-4 is unpublished, as far as I know, but assume it's similar to J2-X at 421 sec. The Merlin is 310.From the calculations upthread, New Shepard has an estimated empty mass of 10t, and holds about 30t of fuel. So the delta-V will be 421 * 9.8 * ln(4) = 5.7 km/sec. For the Falcon first stage, it's suspected the empty mass is about 30t, and it's known to hold 386t of fuel (without sub-cooling). So the total delta-V is 310*9.8*ln(416/30), or about 7.9 km/sec. So in terms of delta-v provided per stage, the stage using Merlin is far more efficient than the stage using a BE-3.Now in terms of delta-V per unit mass, hydrogen can be better. But your inference, therefore less mass at liftoff, therefore less money, does not follow. The saving in first stage mass may not save much money (aluminum and kerosene are cheap), while the additional expenses to handle hydrogen may be considerable. It's the sum of these costs that counts, not either of these in isolation. For example, the Delta-IV heavy and the Falcon Heavy have similar performance. The Delta-IV has a hydrogen upper stage, which indeed reduces the liftoff mass (733 tons compared to Falcon Heavy's 1463 tons). But by all accounts the Falcon Heavy will be much cheaper, despite its larger mass.In fact, the empirical evidence is opposite your claims. Rockets with hydrogen upper stages are known for being expensive (Atlas, Delta, H-II, Ariane). The low cost rockets (Falcon, Soyuz, Proton) do not use hydrogen in the upper stages.