Author Topic: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2  (Read 51235 times)

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8937
  • UK
  • Liked: 1519
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #120 on: 12/31/2017 07:23 PM »
Winning launches is irrelevant, as they'll just rebook when things go long. Performing launches is all that matters.

Woods170 is right in saying that BO is quiet due to becoming serious about entry into the business i.e. launch. However, this additional attention hasn't yet resulted in the necessary gains to insure that they'll get there. Still in a "provider business free fall".

(Note we haven't heard of the BE-4 recently. Isn't ULA supposed to do an engine downselect about now? Shoe to drop?

add:
A successful FH demo and STP-2 will cause many of those on the BO manifest to switch IMHO. Between Ariane and FH, expect significant attrition as NG first flight slips by five years as my current estimates suggest.

Sure hope that BE-4 announcement happens soon.

A bunch of unsupportable supposition. There is nothing to say any of this will happen.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5682
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 4965
  • Likes Given: 1390
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #121 on: 12/31/2017 07:37 PM »
Sure hope that BE-4 announcement happens soon.

From September 12 on a ULA Vulcan thread:

Quote
Tory Bruno, CEO @ulalaunch: CDR for Vulcan rocket by end this yr; we'll determine engine choice - @AerojetRdyne v @blueorigin before then.

https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/907629989377576962

IF ULA stuck to their schedule we may hear soon, but I suspect they’re waiting for more BE-4 progress (as I’d expect Blue Origin to publicise any major milestone, such as a successful full thrust and/or full duration firing).

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5835
  • Liked: 3663
  • Likes Given: 5102
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #122 on: 12/31/2017 09:18 PM »
Winning launches is irrelevant, as they'll just rebook when things go long. Performing launches is all that matters.

Woods170 is right in saying that BO is quiet due to becoming serious about entry into the business i.e. launch. However, this additional attention hasn't yet resulted in the necessary gains to insure that they'll get there. Still in a "provider business free fall".

(Note we haven't heard of the BE-4 recently. Isn't ULA supposed to do an engine downselect about now? Shoe to drop?

add:
A successful FH demo and STP-2 will cause many of those on the BO manifest to switch IMHO. Between Ariane and FH, expect significant attrition as NG first flight slips by five years as my current estimates suggest.

Sure hope that BE-4 announcement happens soon.

That's what Jim said about the first 20 launches that SpaceX added to its manifest.  I don't doubt that BE-4 and NG could (will) be delayed... OneWeb and Eutelsat know that, too.  Yet prices plus capability (or something else?) appeared attractive enough for each customer to go out on the limb and announce their intention to fly early on NG.  That's not nothing.

So, is your estimate that NG first flight will slip to 2025?  What is your basis for that prediction? -- just curious.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Navier–Stokes

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 219
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 1701
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #123 on: 12/31/2017 09:55 PM »
There's some L2 information regarding BE-4 testing progress:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42173

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2783
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2883
  • Likes Given: 2249
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #124 on: 12/31/2017 10:17 PM »
Winning launches is irrelevant, as they'll just rebook when things go long. Performing launches is all that matters.

Woods170 is right in saying that BO is quiet due to becoming serious about entry into the business i.e. launch. However, this additional attention hasn't yet resulted in the necessary gains to insure that they'll get there. Still in a "provider business free fall".

(Note we haven't heard of the BE-4 recently. Isn't ULA supposed to do an engine downselect about now? Shoe to drop?

add:
A successful FH demo and STP-2 will cause many of those on the BO manifest to switch IMHO. Between Ariane and FH, expect significant attrition as NG first flight slips by five years as my current estimates suggest.

Sure hope that BE-4 announcement happens soon.

That's what Jim said about the first 20 launches that SpaceX added to its manifest.
Jim is wise.

SX has lost missions to Ariane 5. And you know, it does make sense that the same logic fits the *any* LV introduction, including FH and NG, as it did Ariane 5's early issues.

Quote
I don't doubt that BE-4 and NG could (will) be delayed... OneWeb and Eutelsat know that, too.  Yet prices plus capability (or something else?) appeared attractive enough for each customer to go out on the limb and announce their intention to fly early on NG.  That's not nothing.
No, it isn't.

Who knows, maybe everything just comes together smoothly, passes all tests/qualifications, and flies the first time (haven't experienced this joy yet but I'd love to see it). I'd even like to see it on NS RSN.

Quote
So, is your estimate that NG first flight will slip to 2025?  What is your basis for that prediction? -- just curious.
Can give you some.

First, everything falls out of the propulsion and plumbing aspects of this, as "long poles". From the artifacts in the brief BE-4 video we've been allowed to see, they were straining at the time to have a marginal "safe" test burn.

So the work to progress to the point where ULA can accept the engine for Vulcan and downselect AR-1 is still a considerable challenge. Having BE-4 be used by Vulcan means that BO can skip an interim vehicle development to prove the engine on, to reduce schedule pressure. As that delays, everything else backs up, as you can't get certain information you need to advance designs.

Next, other subsystems that you might refine on NS that might be re-implemented for NG possibly need more flight history and application before you can move on, and this also appears to be stalled.

Next, your GSE and pad infrastructure needs a structural test item to be fabricated to layout and build key elements of the facility, for the others to come together. Don't see it.

More like this. In general, its a lack of specific items that have to be present that aren't present, and also the fact that a partner also isn't crowing about what they badly need being provided as expected.

Am all ears to hear that these have been done and everything is on schedule.

As to my 5 year assessment, its from things I'm hearing as to how others are "managing expectations". I don't see the confidence and I do see alternative paths considered. These often shift, but seem pretty consistent at the moment.

There's some L2 information regarding BE-4 testing progress:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42173
Am aware of non-public information. Have been asked to offer an opinion on it too.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8937
  • UK
  • Liked: 1519
  • Likes Given: 168
Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #125 on: 12/31/2017 10:56 PM »
Winning launches is irrelevant, as they'll just rebook when things go long. Performing launches is all that matters.

Woods170 is right in saying that BO is quiet due to becoming serious about entry into the business i.e. launch. However, this additional attention hasn't yet resulted in the necessary gains to insure that they'll get there. Still in a "provider business free fall".

(Note we haven't heard of the BE-4 recently. Isn't ULA supposed to do an engine downselect about now? Shoe to drop?

add:
A successful FH demo and STP-2 will cause many of those on the BO manifest to switch IMHO. Between Ariane and FH, expect significant attrition as NG first flight slips by five years as my current estimates suggest.

Sure hope that BE-4 announcement happens soon.

That's what Jim said about the first 20 launches that SpaceX added to its manifest.
Jim is wise.

SX has lost missions to Ariane 5. And you know, it does make sense that the same logic fits the *any* LV introduction, including FH and NG, as it did Ariane 5's early issues.

Quote
I don't doubt that BE-4 and NG could (will) be delayed... OneWeb and Eutelsat know that, too.  Yet prices plus capability (or something else?) appeared attractive enough for each customer to go out on the limb and announce their intention to fly early on NG.  That's not nothing.
No, it isn't.

Who knows, maybe everything just comes together smoothly, passes all tests/qualifications, and flies the first time (haven't experienced this joy yet but I'd love to see it). I'd even like to see it on NS RSN.

Quote
So, is your estimate that NG first flight will slip to 2025?  What is your basis for that prediction? -- just curious.
Can give you some.

First, everything falls out of the propulsion and plumbing aspects of this, as "long poles". From the artifacts in the brief BE-4 video we've been allowed to see, they were straining at the time to have a marginal "safe" test burn.

So the work to progress to the point where ULA can accept the engine for Vulcan and downselect AR-1 is still a considerable challenge. Having BE-4 be used by Vulcan means that BO can skip an interim vehicle development to prove the engine on, to reduce schedule pressure. As that delays, everything else backs up, as you can't get certain information you need to advance designs.

Next, other subsystems that you might refine on NS that might be re-implemented for NG possibly need more flight history and application before you can move on, and this also appears to be stalled.

Next, your GSE and pad infrastructure needs a structural test item to be fabricated to layout and build key elements of the facility, for the others to come together. Don't see it.

More like this. In general, its a lack of specific items that have to be present that aren't present, and also the fact that a partner also isn't crowing about what they badly need being provided as expected.

Am all ears to hear that these have been done and everything is on schedule.

As to my 5 year assessment, its from things I'm hearing as to how others are "managing expectations". I don't see the confidence and I do see alternative paths considered. These often shift, but seem pretty consistent at the moment.

There's some L2 information regarding BE-4 testing progress:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42173
Am aware of non-public information. Have been asked to offer an opinion on it too.

You know it’s pointless debating this topic with you as you constantly move the goalposts to justify your opinions. Even when someone goes to the trouble of actually countering your arguments you just move the goalposts again or come up with more hypothetical hoops for BO to leap through.
« Last Edit: 12/31/2017 10:56 PM by Star One »

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7921
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 3898
  • Likes Given: 1186
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #126 on: 12/31/2017 11:28 PM »
...

The fact that Blue is rather secretive hides the fact that Blue is very much accelerating. To get New Shepard off the ground took them 11 years (from project start in 2004 to first flight in 2015).
...

Nit: Blue started that project in 2000 with its founding.  15-16 years.

Not quite. The first four years of Blue were spent on seeking alternatives for chemical rockets and next exploring VTVL principles and technologies via the Charon and Goddard vehicles. It wasn't until both had validated Blue's newly-developed VTVL technology that New Shepard began serious development. The first POC for New Shepard took nearly seven years to fly in August 2011. And then another 4 years until the actual New Shepard system.

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7921
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 3898
  • Likes Given: 1186
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #127 on: 12/31/2017 11:31 PM »
One fatal flight can setback HSF industry by years or decades. Companies would closeup or kill programs as investment money disappears.


This is a fallacy in the case of Blue. With pockets as deep as Bezos' a fatal flight in their HSF program is not going to kill their HSF program.

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5835
  • Liked: 3663
  • Likes Given: 5102
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #128 on: 01/01/2018 12:04 PM »
Both Blue and OneWeb seem to be getting on with the process, so we'll just have to watch as pieces come together.

Quote
“New Glenn has the capability and performance to launch customers into polar orbit from Florida,” the company said in a statement. “We are working diligently to finish our launch site at Launch Complex 36 so we can meet the market demands of commercial, civil, and national security customers from the Space Coast.”

Brian Holz, CEO of OneWeb Satellites, which next year will start building satellites at KSC, said a polar launch option from Florida would benefit rocket and satellite providers.

“From a OneWeb Satellites perspective, having the satellite manufacturing located next door to a launch facility that has such flexibility would be a huge benefit,” he said.

http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2017/12/31/southbound-cape-rockets-may-fly-new-path-toward-poles/975027001/

On another note concerning Jim being 'wise':  SpaceX lost a flight and swapped a flight with Ariane, mostly because FH was delayed.  What lost missions were associated with F9's initial manifest* of 20 flights?


* I believe this is on topic because of the claim above that the initial set of flights booked by Blue are fluff(irrelevant) -- going away if/when NG is delayed.  OneWeb, who placed five of those seven orders and is quoted above, seems to still be in the game with Blue/NG.
« Last Edit: 01/01/2018 01:06 PM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2783
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2883
  • Likes Given: 2249
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #129 on: 01/01/2018 05:40 PM »
* I believe this is on topic because of the claim above that the initial set of flights booked by Blue are fluff(irrelevant) -- going away if/when NG is delayed.  OneWeb, who placed five of those seven orders and is quoted above, seems to still be in the game with Blue/NG.
Missed the point.

Any new launcher's manifest is irrelevant because its a new launcher, not because the missions "are fluff". Just because it is a new launcher, nothing else. If you want, the mission is built around the "plan B", while the "plan A" is exercised as a timely option.

Remember, a sat recognizes revenue on orbit. So while the clock ticks down "plan A", at some point "plan B" starts looking attractive.

Starlink/OneWeb are a half decade or more from real revenue too.

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2971
  • US
  • Liked: 2346
  • Likes Given: 1461
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #130 on: 01/01/2018 05:47 PM »
Oneweb's initial constellation doesn't rely on Blue, it would be some of their second generation constellation launching on New Glenn.  The Eutelsat contract is for a payload to be determined later depending on when New Glenn actually comes into service.  They aren't contracts for specific payloads or schedules, more encouraging a new entrant into the market and probably taking advantage of new customer discounts.

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7487
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 1701
  • Likes Given: 370
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #131 on: 01/01/2018 05:52 PM »
What lost missions were associated with F9's initial manifest* of 20 flights?

I can think of one right off the top of my head: Avanti HYLAS-1. In 2007 they were the first customer to sign up with SpaceX for a GTO launch.

As a cautionary tale of what might also happen to some signed BO customers, it actually took 3 *years* from the moment Avanti was *launched* on a replacement rocket (Ariane) till the day SpaceX made their first ever GTO delivery.
« Last Edit: 01/01/2018 05:53 PM by ugordan »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #132 on: 01/01/2018 06:33 PM »
Oneweb order isn't like GEO sat mission where it is specific satellite. For example OneWeb may target satellites No50-60 for first NG but if expected delays happen then it maybe No100-110 or even No200-210 that fly. OneWeb will be launching so many satellites over a few years it doesn't matter. 

Unlike GEO satellites, losing ten satellites on low cost flight is just minor setback, probably few weeks of production.

NB OneWeb could be good candidate for Vulcan maiden flights, especially if price is right. 

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2971
  • US
  • Liked: 2346
  • Likes Given: 1461
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #133 on: 01/01/2018 07:02 PM »
Oneweb order isn't like GEO sat mission where it is specific satellite. For example OneWeb may target satellites No50-60 for first NG but if expected delays happen then it maybe No100-110 or even No200-210 that fly. OneWeb will be launching so many satellites over a few years it doesn't matter. 

They wouldn't be 50-60, or 200-210.  They'd be 800-850, or 1000-1050.  The initial OneWeb constellation is launching on Soyuz.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5682
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 4965
  • Likes Given: 1390
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #134 on: 01/09/2018 06:47 PM »
There’s video at the link. Buzz said “I expect to work more with Jeff Bezos”, not “I’d rather work with Jezz Bezos”, but still interesting:

Quote
Buzz Aldrin I’d Rather Work With Bezos than SpaceX or NASA
 
1/9/18 2:02 PM PST

http://m.tmz.com/#!article/2018/01/09/buzz-aldrin-jeff-bezos-space-exploration/

Online Chris Bergin

Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #135 on: 01/25/2018 02:12 PM »
Includes Blue Origin....in Ian Atkinson's first article for NSF!

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/01/kennedy-cape-brownsville-launch-pads-schedules/

Offline jpo234

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 859
  • Liked: 661
  • Likes Given: 98
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #136 on: 01/25/2018 08:15 PM »
Question: With the first flight of New Glenn planned in about 2 years I would assume that Blue has to start to work on their recovery ship about now. Is there a way to find it from public records?

There has to be a registry of vessels under US flag...
« Last Edit: 01/25/2018 08:17 PM by jpo234 »
You want to be inspired by things. You want to wake up in the morning and think the future is going to be great. That's what being a spacefaring civilization is all about. It's about believing in the future and believing the future will be better than the past. And I can't think of anything more exciting than being out there among the stars.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2360
  • Canada
  • Liked: 320
  • Likes Given: 532
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #137 on: 01/26/2018 05:13 AM »
Question: With the first flight of New Glenn planned in about 2 years I would assume that Blue has to start to work on their recovery ship about now. Is there a way to find it from public records?

There has to be a registry of vessels under US flag...

The ship could be in conversion right now with an offshore shell company under a flag of convenience in some Asian dry dock. AIUI Blue can re-flagged & renamed the recovery ship to US registry when they take procession of the ship.

Offline vaporcobra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 898
  • Tacoma, WA
  • Liked: 1496
  • Likes Given: 1898
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #138 on: 01/29/2018 10:37 PM »
New license for GPS/radio testing was just granted. I think it expires in 2098...

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/GetApplicationInfo.cfm?id_file_num=0833-EX-CN-2017

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2013
  • California
  • Liked: 1561
  • Likes Given: 2818
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #139 on: 01/29/2018 10:59 PM »
New license for GPS/radio testing was just granted. I think it expires in 2098...

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/GetApplicationInfo.cfm?id_file_num=0833-EX-CN-2017

It's for GPS reradiation testing so that they can test the onboard GPS systems for New Shepard vehicles during production in Kent, Washington. 

And no, it isn't good for 80 years.  ;D  It expires November 27, 2019.
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Tags: