Author Topic: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread  (Read 968282 times)

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27789
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 7670
  • Likes Given: 5111
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #2280 on: 10/06/2017 02:48 AM »
At NSC meeting "Blue Origin in discussions concerning certifying NG for NSS payloads.'

(!)

Quote
Smith: in talks with natíl security community and NASA on certifying New Glenn for their missions.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/915959780979740673
(Bold mine)
Anyone catch that?

I'm old enough to remember when people scoffed at the idea that Blue Origin would do national security launches...
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8406
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3313
  • Likes Given: 776
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #2281 on: 10/06/2017 02:52 AM »
... or any launches.

Jeff Bezos has billions to spend on rockets and can go at whatever pace he likes! Wow! What pace is he going at? Well... have you heard of Zeno's paradox?

Offline su27k

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 857
  • Liked: 572
  • Likes Given: 63
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #2282 on: 10/06/2017 02:59 AM »
At NSC meeting "Blue Origin in discussions concerning certifying NG for NSS payloads.'

(!)

Quote
Smith: in talks with natíl security community and NASA on certifying New Glenn for their missions.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/915959780979740673
(Bold mine)
Anyone catch that?

I'm old enough to remember when people scoffed at the idea that Blue Origin would do national security launches...

There were indication of this from the Air Force months ago, this is the first time Blue admitted it themselves though.

I guess people could still argue that there're some sort of non-compete agreement between Blue and ULA, something like Blue would only go after launches that ULA would lose to SpaceX anyway.

Offline Semmel

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1253
  • Germany
  • Liked: 947
  • Likes Given: 2807
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #2283 on: 10/06/2017 11:26 AM »

Offline Rebel44

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 323
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 861
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #2284 on: 10/06/2017 01:37 PM »
At NSC meeting "Blue Origin in discussions concerning certifying NG for NSS payloads.'

(!)

Quote
Smith: in talks with natíl security community and NASA on certifying New Glenn for their missions.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/915959780979740673
(Bold mine)
Anyone catch that?

I'm old enough to remember when people scoffed at the idea that Blue Origin would do national security launches...

There were indication of this from the Air Force months ago, this is the first time Blue admitted it themselves though.

I guess people could still argue that there're some sort of non-compete agreement between Blue and ULA, something like Blue would only go after launches that ULA would lose to SpaceX anyway.
I doubt such non-compete would be legal - let alone enforceable.

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3595
  • Liked: 1774
  • Likes Given: 1128
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #2285 on: 10/06/2017 01:51 PM »
At NSC meeting "Blue Origin in discussions concerning certifying NG for NSS payloads.'

(!)

Quote
Smith: in talks with natíl security community and NASA on certifying New Glenn for their missions.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/915959780979740673
(Bold mine)
Anyone catch that?

I'm old enough to remember when people scoffed at the idea that Blue Origin would do national security launches...

There were indication of this from the Air Force months ago, this is the first time Blue admitted it themselves though.

I guess people could still argue that there're some sort of non-compete agreement between Blue and ULA, something like Blue would only go after launches that ULA would lose to SpaceX anyway.
I doubt such non-compete would be legal - let alone enforceable.

And it would hardly be the first time a hardware supplier has competed directly with their own customers.

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #2286 on: 10/06/2017 09:28 PM »
For the two versions of BE-4 I use SI-units instead of Imperial. Initially BE-4 was at 400k lbf if I'm not mistaken (1780kN), this was the power rating where the powerpack was tested for. For ULA they improved the power to 550k lbf (2450kN).
I'm not so sure the 1MN (1000kN) Raptor is a FFSC. I'm expecting it's a GG cycle engine like Merlin 1D, burning oxygen rich or fuel rich. If they have the GG and turbine running reliable oxygen and fuel rich; I think SpaceX needs to develop a new combustion chamber and two new turbopumps.
BE-4 is definitely with a full version on the test stand. (though it didn't work reliably jet)
AR-1 is also testing pre-burners and turbines / turbo-pumps.

I wrote a post about BO wanting to offer it's NG to US institutions in the Vulcan topic.
Sorry, for posting this idea multiple times.

According to a DLR study on TSTO VTVL configurations (Prometheus & Callisto topic) for ArianeNext:
- a 5.5m diameter 75.3m long launcher.
- with a take of weight of 885mT;
- LOxLCH4 stages with 1th: 648mT and 2th: 142mT of propallent.
- Stage vacuum thrust of 1th: 13900kN and 2th 1390kN (GG cycle engines; 11x 1th 1x 2th).
- Would be able to orbit a 7490kg payload to GTO -1500m/s

They found the performance model to be in line with the performance of Falcon 9 and NG.
So a NG powered by 7x~1780kN and 1x ~2000kN would be more powerful then this ArianeNext.
I don't know of any Comsat that was heaver then 7.5mT. So a NG with 1800kN engines would be able to orbit all comsat's with 1th stage downrange landing.
The NG with 2450kN engines is able to orbit all satellites ever developed (except for the Space shuttle; Buran; Skylab and Apollo missions). My opinion is that the NG is already far to much launcher for nearly all payloads. Most likely a NG with reusable 2th stage/shuttle would also be able to orbit practically all payloads. I'm hopeful this is where BO will end up with around 2030.

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #2287 on: 10/06/2017 09:39 PM »
There were indication of this from the Air Force months ago, this is the first time Blue admitted it themselves though.

I guess people could still argue that there're some sort of non-compete agreement between Blue and ULA, something like Blue would only go after launches that ULA would lose to SpaceX anyway.
I doubt such non-compete would be legal - let alone enforceable.

I think su27k means a agreement between BO and ULA to don't compete. If Vulcan uses BE-4, BO gets revenue both when Vulcan or NG are used. (though using NG would bring more revenue to BO)
For this reason it wouldn't make sense for BO to let NG compete with Vulcan. Thus the gentleman's agreement to don't let New Glenn compete with Vulcan.

Offline cppetrie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 566
  • Liked: 320
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #2288 on: 10/06/2017 10:46 PM »
...
I'm not so sure the 1MN (1000kN) Raptor is a FFSC. I'm expecting it's a GG cycle engine like Merlin 1D, burning oxygen rich or fuel rich. If they have the GG and turbine running reliable oxygen and fuel rich; I think SpaceX needs to develop a new combustion chamber and two new turbopumps.
...
How can an engine designed to be a FFSC be run as a GG cycle engine? I legitimately donít know if thatís possible, but got the impression it wasnít. If not possible, youíre suggesting that SpaceX is not actually showing us the raptor they say they are. I have been under the impression that the raptor is exactly what has been described and running exactly as intended although not built to the scale previously announced and perhaps not at the full thrust or duration as intended for use in BFR. But otherwise it is operating just as the final engine will.

What am I missing/misunderstanding?

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3595
  • Liked: 1774
  • Likes Given: 1128
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #2289 on: 10/06/2017 11:49 PM »
...
I'm not so sure the 1MN (1000kN) Raptor is a FFSC. I'm expecting it's a GG cycle engine like Merlin 1D, burning oxygen rich or fuel rich. If they have the GG and turbine running reliable oxygen and fuel rich; I think SpaceX needs to develop a new combustion chamber and two new turbopumps.
...
How can an engine designed to be a FFSC be run as a GG cycle engine? I legitimately donít know if thatís possible, but got the impression it wasnít. If not possible, youíre suggesting that SpaceX is not actually showing us the raptor they say they are. I have been under the impression that the raptor is exactly what has been described and running exactly as intended although not built to the scale previously announced and perhaps not at the full thrust or duration as intended for use in BFR. But otherwise it is operating just as the final engine will.

What am I missing/misunderstanding?

The demo Raptor is definitely running the complete FFSC. They tested the preburners and powerpack years ago.

Blue has also tested the preburners and powerpack, but we don't know that Blue has tried to fire a full engine yet. The powerpack failure might just have been a powerpack, or it might have been a full engine.

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2989
  • US
  • Liked: 2362
  • Likes Given: 1468
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #2290 on: 10/07/2017 12:00 AM »
Up-scaling a FFSC engine means redeveloping 2x pre-burners; 2x turbine/turbo-pump assemblies & new combustion chamber. With a GG cycle engine the GG can become a pre-burner. When a single shaft turbine/dual TP GG is used; the oxygen rich turbine can become the turbine for the Oxidizer side; The fuel rich turbine can become the fuel side turbine. Now only the two turbopumps (using the tested turbines) and the combustion chamber need to be developed. So with a GG subscale engine you prove 4 systems; leaving 3 to be developed instead of 5 completely new systems. And they reused the Merlin hardware for this sub-scale Raptor demonstrator.
(Neglecting the engine controller and a lot or other stuf that needs to be redesigned for every rocket engine.)
That's my reasoning for doubting 1MN Raptor is FFSC. But I could be wrong.

In that case the full size raptor is years away from introduction. All components have to be redesigned, tested and qualified. BE-4 400 => 550 lbf = 1.375x; Raptor 1MN => 1.7MN = 1.7x

1.  This thread is not about Raptor.
2.  Unless you have any evidence the Raptor being tested isn't FFSC you should probably stop making that claim.

Online Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3862
  • California
  • Liked: 3103
  • Likes Given: 1967
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #2291 on: 10/07/2017 05:07 AM »
...
I'm not so sure the 1MN (1000kN) Raptor is a FFSC. I'm expecting it's a GG cycle engine like Merlin 1D, burning oxygen rich or fuel rich. If they have the GG and turbine running reliable oxygen and fuel rich; I think SpaceX needs to develop a new combustion chamber and two new turbopumps.
...
How can an engine designed to be a FFSC be run as a GG cycle engine? I legitimately donít know if thatís possible, but got the impression it wasnít. If not possible, youíre suggesting that SpaceX is not actually showing us the raptor they say they are. I have been under the impression that the raptor is exactly what has been described and running exactly as intended although not built to the scale previously announced and perhaps not at the full thrust or duration as intended for use in BFR. But otherwise it is operating just as the final engine will.

What am I missing/misunderstanding?

You aren't missing anything. Rik ISS-fan is in fantasy land when it comes to Raptor.

Online hkultala

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 760
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #2292 on: 10/16/2017 09:34 AM »
[offtopic]

For the two versions of BE-4 I use SI-units instead of Imperial.

Good, but could you then use those SI units correctly? millitesla is not a unit of mass. Tonne and megagram are SI units for mass.

Quote
I'm not so sure the 1MN (1000kN) Raptor is a FFSC. I'm expecting it's a GG cycle engine like Merlin 1D, burning oxygen rich or fuel rich. If they have the GG and turbine running reliable oxygen and fuel rich; I think SpaceX needs to develop a new combustion chamber and two new turbopumps.

Everybody else is sure. What you are speculating makes absolutely no sense at all. GG and FFSC require totally different turbopumps, there is no way how GG engine could be used as "prototype to FFSC engine", and making such totally different intermediate engine would not make any sense. it would be a dead end.

[/offtopic]

Offline high road

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Europe
  • Liked: 194
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #2293 on: 10/16/2017 06:34 PM »
Just realized that BO's last test is now over a year ago. A great time to review the entire flight 4 webcast and laugh at all their hyperbole about why a suborbital rocket is better/faster/cheaper/can do more test flights/etc. Luckily they toned that down for the in flight escape test. With all the statements that never materialized before they got beat to the punch, this video would make a great drinking game.

Maybe a good idea for their next test flight later this year. Or SpaceX's fourth reuse of a single core. Or the unlikely event that Virgin leapfrogs them with a first manned flight. Great times to live in!

Offline JDTractorGuy

  • Member
  • Posts: 45
  • USAF
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #2294 on: 10/17/2017 01:15 PM »
To any mod, can I make a request that we have a separate discussion and update thread for BO?  I like coming on here and just checking any updates, and sometimes it's difficult to see them with all the discussion mixed in.

Thanks.

Offline Svetoslav

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1107
  • Bulgaria
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 63
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #2295 on: 10/17/2017 01:43 PM »
I like coming on here and just checking any updates

Same. Dropping a message to say I agree with you.

Offline saliva_sweet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 544
  • Liked: 415
  • Likes Given: 1309
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #2296 on: 10/17/2017 03:35 PM »
Need some help here. Where is the discussion of the Spacenews article "Blue Origin shows interest in national security launches". I'd like to read it, but I can't find it. I know it has been discussed somewhere on these forums.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9948
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 6761
  • Likes Given: 4545
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #2297 on: 10/17/2017 06:52 PM »
I doubt such non-compete would be legal - let alone enforceable.
It would be fairly hard to detect, and it might not actually be an agreement, just good business sense. Gas stations don't collude, they just often happen to be at the same price if across the street from each other because it makes good business sense. And not every gas station has diesel. Or CNG. Because it makes good business sense.

I like coming on here and just checking any updates

Same. Dropping a message to say I agree with you.

Report to mod works better for that. I happened to notice these comments skimming this thread looking for well informed speculation and updates.

Also, this thread isn't about Raptor. Or the F-1.
« Last Edit: 10/17/2017 06:53 PM by Lar »
"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 Chris Bergin

Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #2298 on: 10/17/2017 07:02 PM »
Wow.

816,526 views for this thread! Time for a new one.

Thread 2:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43998.0
« Last Edit: 10/17/2017 07:03 PM by Chris Bergin »

Tags: