Author Topic: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2  (Read 80074 times)

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4108
  • Liked: 2128
  • Likes Given: 1272
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #40 on: 11/06/2017 05:50 PM »
Blue Origin seems to be moving along quite nicely to me.  The company did not announce plans for New Glenn (then called Very Big Brother) until September 15, 2015 - only a bit more than two years ago.  Since then it has test fired BE-4, built most of its factory at the Cape, and begun work on the launch and test complex nearby. 

SpaceX announced plans for Falcon 9 during September 2005.  It moved into its Hawthorne factory during October 2007.  Merlin 1C development finished one month later, but Merlin Vacuum testing extended into 2009.  Full scale Falcon 9 first stage firings at McGregor took place during mid to late 2008.  The first Falcon 9 launch took place on June 4, 2010.

 - Ed Kyle

Pretty sure they announced NG in Sept 2016, just over one year ago. Also seems like the expected date of its first launch has slipped about a year in that time :)

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3928
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2609
  • Likes Given: 3345
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #41 on: 11/06/2017 07:43 PM »
Blue Origin seems to be moving along quite nicely to me.  The company did not announce plans for New Glenn (then called Very Big Brother) until September 15, 2015 - only a bit more than two years ago.  Since then it has test fired BE-4, built most of its factory at the Cape, and begun work on the launch and test complex nearby.

Good progress no doubt. Definitely seeming to be moving faster than ULA on Vulcan.

Quote
SpaceX announced plans for Falcon 9 during September 2005.  It moved into its Hawthorne factory during October 2007.  Merlin 1C development finished one month later, but Merlin Vacuum testing extended into 2009.  Full scale Falcon 9 first stage firings at McGregor took place during mid to late 2008.  The first Falcon 9 launch took place on June 4, 2010.

However Musk was not able to pump $1B a year into SpaceX like Bezos is with Blue Origin. SpaceX only had $65M in outside investment prior to 2010, so they had to grow while satisfying customer demand - difficult to do.

SpaceX did get an outside investment of $1B in 2015 (primarily from Google), and no doubt that has allowed them to accelerate not only Falcon 9 development, but also fund the comsat business they are starting up.

So I think people compare the available funding for both Blue Origin and SpaceX, and just based on that it would seem that Blue Origin would be further along than SpaceX. Still, not that it's a race, but it's good to have two competitors in the reusable rocket market space, so any critiques are really just wishes that Blue Origin would go faster...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3370
  • US
  • Liked: 2724
  • Likes Given: 1643
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #42 on: 11/07/2017 03:06 AM »
Pointing it out repeatedly is just a bunch of snarky noise.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10117
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 6961
  • Likes Given: 4752
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #43 on: 11/07/2017 09:57 AM »
Pick one thread for criticism of Blue, (say the business model thread) and belay it in the others, and make sure it's not just repeating yourself.

My musing style didn't do it.... Gongora's warning didn't do it. Even to this SpaceX fanboy it is getting tiresome. Deletion ahead if there is more repetitive baseless snark.
"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 Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 74
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #44 on: 11/07/2017 11:39 PM »
 ???
Alan Shepard; John Glenn; Neel Armstrong.
Could New Armstrong just be the BlueMoon lander?
Could a 3stage New Glenn launch a New Armstrong to the moon to bring people there?
Will New Armstrong use the BE-2 and BE-1 engines?
Was that Bezos the plan all along?

Could the New Glenn First stage with a 5m diameter BE-3U upperstage be capable of orbiting Orion?
And when the EU service module is replaced by a BE-2 powered one that also serves as pusher escape system?
New Glenn (or a 7-9 engine BFR) is way safer and could make SLS obsolete. Enables Cis-Lunar, ECLSS & human physiology prohibits further exploration. But maintaining the ISS/LLEO space lab is way more important for humanity than a CIS-lunar outpost. Don't forget that all ISS partners still rely on Russia for ISS crew transport.
0-humans in space is much closer than >10. (yes, I'm pessimistic about human spaceflight.)
« Last Edit: 11/07/2017 11:56 PM by Rik ISS-fan »

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10117
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 6961
  • Likes Given: 4752
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #45 on: 11/08/2017 01:51 AM »
I think it's far-fetched to think that NA is a lander and not a bigger launcher. It also goes against a lot of the clues that were worked through.
"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 Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 74
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #46 on: 11/08/2017 11:24 AM »
Sorry, here I go again:
I fooled around a bit with a image from Reddit and one from BlueOrigin.
I scaled the New Glenn so it has the same tank diameter as New Shepard.

This could be a representation of a rocket with a reusable first stage with one BE-4 engine. And as second stage a new stage that uses the tanks of New Shepard with BE-3U engine. I think this rocket can loft about 5mT to SSO 800km.
A less capable launcher could be developed with a different second stage. For example propelled by a BE-2 engine or a new LOxLNG Tap-off or Dual Expander cycle engine. (With this new methane engine BO could go back to a multiple engine configuration.)
Take off mass should stay below 200mT otherwise Solid's (GEM63?) have to be added.
This small rocket from BO could become a workhorse LEO launcher, for (EO) satellites.

Heavier payloads can be launched by developing a heavy configuration, like Falcon Heavy, or Delta IVH.
I think the configurations for the Soyuz 5 (Feniks) [methane] (now called Soyuz 7) could be suitable for this rocket idea.
The heavy variant could use two reusable boosters and a expendable booster, optionally a BE-3 upper-stage could be added. (I think 5.4m diameter would be beter in this case.)
Developing stage recovery with this rocket is much cheaper than with New Glenn, because only one instead of 7 engines are lost in case of a failure. I also think that this rocket is beter match with the current launch market. New Glenn is far to powerful for >90% of the payloads. A Soyuz 2.1B already can launches 36 Oneweb satellites, New Glenn can launch ~80 at once, but most likely have to do a orbit adjustment.   

Note: I'm speculating here!!!

Edit:
 :-[ I've changed a image.
 I think a larger payload fairing (4.5-5.4m) for the BO single stick could add value.

Another idea, could a Centaur V with BE-3U / NGL cryo upper-stage be used as second stage on the New Glenn Reusable first stage?
« Last Edit: 11/08/2017 11:30 AM by Rik ISS-fan »

Offline Darkseraph

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 575
  • Liked: 267
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #47 on: 11/08/2017 02:51 PM »
I think it's far-fetched to think that NA is a lander and not a bigger launcher. It also goes against a lot of the clues that were worked through.

New Armstrong could be the name of the entire system including a lunar lander. New Sheppard is not the name of a launcher but their entire suborbital system including a human rated capsule. Perhaps NA will be a whole end-to-end architecture focused on reusuable transport to the moon.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." R.P.Feynman

Offline mme

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1240
  • Santa Barbara, CA, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy, Virgo Supercluster
  • Liked: 1516
  • Likes Given: 4097
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #48 on: 11/08/2017 04:40 PM »
???
Alan Shepard; John Glenn; Neel Armstrong.
Could New Armstrong just be the BlueMoon lander?
...
No.  Blue has teased New Armstrong specifically as the bigger rocket that will follow New Glenn that is the bigger rocket that is following the New Shepard rocket.

Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin space venture sets its sights on trips to Mars and the moon
Space is not Highlander.  There can, and will, be more than one.

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 74
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #49 on: 11/08/2017 05:07 PM »
I can't extrapolate from that article that New Armstrong is a Launch Vehicle.
Geekwire:
Quote
“When we have millions of people living and working in space, we want them to be able to go to lots of destinations,” he said. “Mars would be one of them. The moon would be another. New Armstrong is really designed for that long-term vision.”
New Armstrong enables going to the moon and mars, is what I read.
Alan Boyle, the writer of the article, makes the assumption that New Armstrong is a larger rocket.
« Last Edit: 11/08/2017 05:11 PM by Rik ISS-fan »

Online meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 1507
  • Likes Given: 368
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #50 on: 11/08/2017 05:21 PM »
I can't extrapolate from that article that New Armstrong is a Launch Vehicle.
Geekwire:
Quote
“When we have millions of people living and working in space, we want them to be able to go to lots of destinations,” he said. “Mars would be one of them. The moon would be another. New Armstrong is really designed for that long-term vision.”
New Armstrong enables going to the moon and mars, is what I read.
Alan Boyle, the writer of the article, makes the assumption that New Armstrong is a larger rocket.
Context matters. Blue has been quite clear that New Armstrong refers to a full new rocket.

The Blue Moon lander is named "Blue Moon" it is not named "New Armstrong." If Blue Moon was New Armstrong, they would have stated this in the original announcement of Blue Moon and would have never referred to New Armstrong again. Blue Moon also does not have "Mars" in its list of capabilities, while the above quote says that New Armstrong can send people to Mars.

Edit: Also, in the build up to New Glenn, Bezos stated repeatedly that New Glenn would be the smallest orbital rocket they ever build.
« Last Edit: 11/08/2017 05:41 PM by meberbs »

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15585
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 4799
  • Likes Given: 623
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #51 on: 11/09/2017 03:19 AM »
Sorry, here I go again:
I fooled around a bit with a image from Reddit and one from BlueOrigin.
I scaled the New Glenn so it has the same tank diameter as New Shepard.

Note that NS uses uses hydrolox while NG uses methalox which has a much greater propellant density. For the same tank volume, methalox has about twice the impulse than hydrolox. So scaling NG to the smaller size and comparing it the shorter NS needs to take this into account. The smaller NG would have much greater performance than NS since it would be using methalox and has a larger tank volume.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4108
  • Liked: 2128
  • Likes Given: 1272
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #52 on: 11/09/2017 01:39 PM »
Sorry, here I go again:
I fooled around a bit with a image from Reddit and one from BlueOrigin.
I scaled the New Glenn so it has the same tank diameter as New Shepard.

Note that NS uses uses hydrolox while NG uses methalox which has a much greater propellant density. For the same tank volume, methalox has about twice the impulse than hydrolox. So scaling NG to the smaller size and comparing it the shorter NS needs to take this into account. The smaller NG would have much greater performance than NS since it would be using methalox and has a larger tank volume.

The biggest difference vs. New Shepard would be better mass fractions and higher thrust... both of which improve performance at launch but make it very difficult to land. How would a single BE-4 booster be reusable?

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2783
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2903
  • Likes Given: 2249
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #53 on: 11/09/2017 03:14 PM »
Suggest BE-4, unlike BE-3, hasn't enough throttle/gimbal to do a single engine vehicle landing.

If you're going to do a single BE-4 vehicle, it'll be an expendable like a twin engine Vulcan.

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15585
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 4799
  • Likes Given: 623
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #54 on: 11/10/2017 07:54 AM »
Suggest BE-4, unlike BE-3, hasn't enough throttle/gimbal to do a single engine vehicle landing.

If you're going to do a single BE-4 vehicle, it'll be an expendable like a twin engine Vulcan.

There are other ways to land boosters besides rockets. Air bags were considered for the Kistler K-1.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kistler_K-1_Flight_Profile.gif
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6178
  • Liked: 3970
  • Likes Given: 5461
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #55 on: 11/10/2017 11:47 AM »
Suggest BE-4, unlike BE-3, hasn't enough throttle/gimbal to do a single engine vehicle landing.

If you're going to do a single BE-4 vehicle, it'll be an expendable like a twin engine Vulcan.

There are other ways to land boosters besides rockets. Air bags were considered for the Kistler K-1.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kistler_K-1_Flight_Profile.gif

...considered.  So were wings and parachutes.
« Last Edit: 11/10/2017 11:48 AM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4108
  • Liked: 2128
  • Likes Given: 1272
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #56 on: 11/10/2017 02:07 PM »
Suggest BE-4, unlike BE-3, hasn't enough throttle/gimbal to do a single engine vehicle landing.

If you're going to do a single BE-4 vehicle, it'll be an expendable like a twin engine Vulcan.

There are other ways to land boosters besides rockets. Air bags were considered for the Kistler K-1.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kistler_K-1_Flight_Profile.gif

Vertical landing of a booster has been demonstrated at least 3 times (DC-X, New Shepard, F9) and shown to be superior to at least parachute splashdown.

I don't think airbags have been seriously attempted, never mind demonstrated, though they have been proposed several times for vehicles as large as Zenit. It's possible they would work for a single BE-4 booster, as both parachutes and airbags scale better to small vehicles than large ones, but it doesn't seem to be something either Blue or ULA are interested in developing.

Offline GWH

Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #57 on: 11/10/2017 03:51 PM »
Suggest BE-4, unlike BE-3, hasn't enough throttle/gimbal to do a single engine vehicle landing.

If you're going to do a single BE-4 vehicle, it'll be an expendable like a twin engine Vulcan.

Landing of a single main engine rocket can always be accomplished by adding more little engines :) such as the 11,000 lb methalox thrusters planned for use in Blue Moon. I digress since this is off topic for the most part, but that "single engine can't land" comment always bugs me as being dismissive of other design possibilities.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4032
  • California
  • Liked: 3330
  • Likes Given: 2095
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #58 on: 11/10/2017 04:48 PM »
Suggest BE-4, unlike BE-3, hasn't enough throttle/gimbal to do a single engine vehicle landing.

If you're going to do a single BE-4 vehicle, it'll be an expendable like a twin engine Vulcan.

Landing of a single main engine rocket can always be accomplished by adding more little engines :) such as the 11,000 lb methalox thrusters planned for use in Blue Moon. I digress since this is off topic for the most part, but that "single engine can't land" comment always bugs me as being dismissive of other design possibilities.

And your comment strikes me as dismissive of design *practicalities*. Adding several smaller landing engines is not trivial, and it will effect the performance of the vehicle.
« Last Edit: 11/10/2017 04:49 PM by Lars-J »

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2783
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2903
  • Likes Given: 2249
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #59 on: 11/10/2017 04:52 PM »
FWIW, think you can just about do it with 3. Smallest number where a "hoverslam" becomes vaguely possible.

Tags: