Author Topic: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion  (Read 208806 times)

Offline yoram

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 221
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion
« Reply #560 on: 06/29/2020 07:22 pm »
New Armstrong was mentioned nearly four years ago. Is there any evidence that Blue is currently working on a project name New Armstrong?
I have seen no evidence from anyone posting here.  I see no evidence on Blue Origin's website.  I really doubt it is anything more than a concept they discuss from time to time.   I think they have their hands full with all there other projects including building up infrastructure.  I would guess the concept is having an effect on the size of their facilities.  I see no evidence of anything that they are working seriously on New Armstrong.  If someone has hard evidence to the contrary, please post.

BO has over 2500 employees. They are a big enough organisation that they can afford teams looking forward into the future and get started early on "long pole" developments. It's not that it's a small startup that can only focus on a small number of projects.


Online Eric Hedman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2508
  • The birthplace of the solid body electric guitar
  • Liked: 2207
  • Likes Given: 1312
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion
« Reply #561 on: 06/29/2020 08:08 pm »
New Armstrong was mentioned nearly four years ago. Is there any evidence that Blue is currently working on a project name New Armstrong?
I have seen no evidence from anyone posting here.  I see no evidence on Blue Origin's website.  I really doubt it is anything more than a concept they discuss from time to time.   I think they have their hands full with all there other projects including building up infrastructure.  I would guess the concept is having an effect on the size of their facilities.  I see no evidence of anything that they are working seriously on New Armstrong.  If someone has hard evidence to the contrary, please post.

BO has over 2500 employees. They are a big enough organisation that they can afford teams looking forward into the future and get started early on "long pole" developments. It's not that it's a small startup that can only focus on a small number of projects.
How do you know Jeff Bezos thinks they need anything bigger than New Glenn any time soon?  They might think New Glenn could be improved and upgraded for a long time to increase payload and reduce operating costs.  The market will tell them a lot in the next few years.  A reusable second stage or a Starship like second stage with refueling is what I would do.  Both would be great for testing out technology that could down the road apply to a much bigger vehicle if the market develops.  Why dive into anything more than conceptual studies on New Armstrong until you see what happens in the next few years with New Glenn and Blue Moon?  I don't see the point.

Offline Dean47

  • Member
  • Posts: 23
  • Utah, United States
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion
« Reply #562 on: 06/29/2020 08:33 pm »
A very long time ago when I was a new project manager I noticed that there was an optimum amount of money needed to successfully complete a project.  If a project had more money than needed then the project manager spent too much time trying to justify and spend the extra money, to the detriment of the overall project.  I witnessed perfectly good engineering projects that had too much priority and too much money, which resulted in the project management being overwhelmed and the project collapsing.  Somebody, somewhere, must have written a book on the phenomena.  You can probably buy it through Amazon.

Offline yoram

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 221
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion
« Reply #563 on: 06/29/2020 10:19 pm »
New Armstrong was mentioned nearly four years ago. Is there any evidence that Blue is currently working on a project name New Armstrong?
I have seen no evidence from anyone posting here.  I see no evidence on Blue Origin's website.  I really doubt it is anything more than a concept they discuss from time to time.   I think they have their hands full with all there other projects including building up infrastructure.  I would guess the concept is having an effect on the size of their facilities.  I see no evidence of anything that they are working seriously on New Armstrong.  If someone has hard evidence to the contrary, please post.

BO has over 2500 employees. They are a big enough organisation that they can afford teams looking forward into the future and get started early on "long pole" developments. It's not that it's a small startup that can only focus on a small number of projects.
How do you know Jeff Bezos thinks they need anything bigger than New Glenn any time soon?  They might think New Glenn could be improved and upgraded for a long time to increase payload and reduce operating costs.  The market will tell them a lot in the next few years.  A reusable second stage or a Starship like second stage with refueling is what I would do.  Both would be great for testing out technology that could down the road apply to a much bigger vehicle if the market develops.  Why dive into anything more than conceptual studies on New Armstrong until you see what happens in the next few years with New Glenn and Blue Moon?  I don't see the point.

New Glenn is likely too small for a reusable second stage with still acceptable payload. And millions of people living in space is not going to happen on half reusability.  Bezos knows that too. Also he likely wants to see tangible progress in his lifetime, so he cannot wait forever.

That said I'm not sure they already doing full development on NA. As you said it makes sense to wait on lessons learned from NG for many areas. But I would bet they identified some "long pole" areas that take much longer and that will be eventually needed. For example if they think they need a new engine they already need to have started years ago to get to it in a reasonable time frame. There are likely some other areas like this.


Offline Seamurda

  • Member
  • Posts: 73
  • UK
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion
« Reply #564 on: 06/29/2020 11:55 pm »
New Armstrong was mentioned nearly four years ago. Is there any evidence that Blue is currently working on a project name New Armstrong?
I have seen no evidence from anyone posting here.  I see no evidence on Blue Origin's website.  I really doubt it is anything more than a concept they discuss from time to time.   I think they have their hands full with all there other projects including building up infrastructure.  I would guess the concept is having an effect on the size of their facilities.  I see no evidence of anything that they are working seriously on New Armstrong.  If someone has hard evidence to the contrary, please post.

BO has over 2500 employees. They are a big enough organisation that they can afford teams looking forward into the future and get started early on "long pole" developments. It's not that it's a small startup that can only focus on a small number of projects.
How do you know Jeff Bezos thinks they need anything bigger than New Glenn any time soon?  They might think New Glenn could be improved and upgraded for a long time to increase payload and reduce operating costs.  The market will tell them a lot in the next few years.  A reusable second stage or a Starship like second stage with refueling is what I would do.  Both would be great for testing out technology that could down the road apply to a much bigger vehicle if the market develops.  Why dive into anything more than conceptual studies on New Armstrong until you see what happens in the next few years with New Glenn and Blue Moon?  I don't see the point.

New Glenn is likely too small for a reusable second stage with still acceptable payload. And millions of people living in space is not going to happen on half reusability.  Bezos knows that too. Also he likely wants to see tangible progress in his lifetime, so he cannot wait forever.

That said I'm not sure they already doing full development on NA. As you said it makes sense to wait on lessons learned from NG for many areas. But I would bet they identified some "long pole" areas that take much longer and that will be eventually needed. For example if they think they need a new engine they already need to have started years ago to get to it in a reasonable time frame. There are likely some other areas like this.

When I (and others) have run New Glenn through a time step simulation the quoted 45 tonnes to LEO performance of New Glenn is very conservatively stated (more like 60 tonnes), unless they have exceptionally heavy stages. They are doing a down range landing with no entry burn.

If they want to recover the second stage with a frontal heat shield and rear inflatable heat shield skirt plus parachutes and airbags I can't see that massing more than 5 tonnes. See Kistler K1.

Ergo for project kuiper they may well be able to bring back the second stage and have full quoted payload. It becomes more marginal the higher you want to go.

This also assumes that they don't upgrade the BE4 to a more RD180 like chamber pressure, at which point they are pretty close to Raptor performance.

With an upgraded BE4 they could probably manage both a RTLS booster recovery and devote 20 tonnes to wings and a heat shield. If they don't care about landing on Mars a horizontal runway landing is likely to be lighter.

This configuration would have enough space for tonnes of cargo and/or  ~hundred passengers. Plenty enough to start mass space tourism, with space stations being constructed using the recoverable second stage or simply using wet workshops.

The other alternative is that the New Glenn will be a learning experience a'la Falcon 9 and will be retired when a new configuration is developed.

Offline DJPledger

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 822
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 35486
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion
« Reply #565 on: 06/30/2020 08:17 am »
This thread has run it's course so it is time to lock it please. Start a new thread about NA when BO releases some info. on it.

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8975
  • Virginia
  • Liked: 61016
  • Likes Given: 1372
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion
« Reply #566 on: 06/30/2020 03:48 pm »
A very long time ago when I was a new project manager I noticed that there was an optimum amount of money needed to successfully complete a project.  If a project had more money than needed then the project manager spent too much time trying to justify and spend the extra money, to the detriment of the overall project.  I witnessed perfectly good engineering projects that had too much priority and too much money, which resulted in the project management being overwhelmed and the project collapsing.  Somebody, somewhere, must have written a book on the phenomena.  You can probably buy it through Amazon.
I remember all the times coming up with more efficient ways to do something wasn't to the managers advantage, because it would reduce the budget justification. I'd have to be sure to spend the money on something extra, like a shiny new TDR, or unplanned capability.
 Spending buckets of money on development and prototypes with the intention to get costs down once production starts reminds me of 200 engineers wanting to get their new rocket off the ground first and work on reusability later, with one person (the boss) insisting on designing for reusability from the start. The boss turned out to be right.
 Efficiencies in cost, engineering, production and otherwise is an attitude that needs to be present from the beginning.
« Last Edit: 06/30/2020 03:54 pm by Nomadd »
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5364
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2679
  • Likes Given: 3090
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion
« Reply #567 on: 06/30/2020 03:54 pm »
Well, since this is still a speculation thread.  What about a 3 core heavy version of New Glenn.  100+ tons to LEO.  No new rocket or engine development, except maybe a larger upper stage for multiple BE-3U's, and the development of a stronger center core like FH had to do.  The upper stage could be a minimum of 4 BE-3U's and 1 BE-3 center engine for a reusable upper stage to land. 

However, using the same engines like SpaceX, and new wider rocket would probably be easier or better. 

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8975
  • Virginia
  • Liked: 61016
  • Likes Given: 1372
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion
« Reply #568 on: 06/30/2020 03:59 pm »
Well, since this is still a speculation thread.  What about a 3 core heavy version of New Glenn.  100+ tons to LEO.  No new rocket or engine development, except maybe a larger upper stage for multiple BE-3U's, and the development of a stronger center core like FH had to do.  The upper stage could be a minimum of 4 BE-3U's and 1 BE-3 center engine for a reusable upper stage to land. 

However, using the same engines like SpaceX, and new wider rocket would probably be easier or better. 
The FH wouldn't have been built if they'd known how difficult and expensive it would be. It will probably never come close to recovering the money spent on developing it. And "a larger upper stage for multiple BE-3U's, and the development of a stronger center core" is a long way from "no new rocket development".
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline SDSmith

  • Danny Smith
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 227
  • Sugar Hill
  • Liked: 197
  • Likes Given: 552
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion
« Reply #569 on: 06/30/2020 04:18 pm »
Well, since this is still a speculation thread.  What about a 3 core heavy version of New Glenn.  100+ tons to LEO.  No new rocket or engine development, except maybe a larger upper stage for multiple BE-3U's, and the development of a stronger center core like FH had to do.  The upper stage could be a minimum of 4 BE-3U's and 1 BE-3 center engine for a reusable upper stage to land. 

However, using the same engines like SpaceX, and new wider rocket would probably be easier or better. 
The FH wouldn't have been built if they'd known how difficult and expensive it would be. It will probably never come close to recovering the money spent on developing it. And "a larger upper stage for multiple BE-3U's, and the development of a stronger center core" is a long way from "no new rocket development".
Don't forget the launch pad modifications and transporter/erector.

Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion
« Reply #570 on: 06/30/2020 05:23 pm »
Well, since this is still a speculation thread.  What about a 3 core heavy version of New Glenn.  100+ tons to LEO.  No new rocket or engine development, except maybe a larger upper stage for multiple BE-3U's, and the development of a stronger center core like FH had to do.  The upper stage could be a minimum of 4 BE-3U's and 1 BE-3 center engine for a reusable upper stage to land. 

However, using the same engines like SpaceX, and new wider rocket would probably be easier or better. 
The FH wouldn't have been built if they'd known how difficult and expensive it would be. It will probably never come close to recovering the money spent on developing it. And "a larger upper stage for multiple BE-3U's, and the development of a stronger center core" is a long way from "no new rocket development".

But Falcon Heavy isn't the only 3 core rocket that's ever been built. The Delta IV Heavy was developed quite rapidly, for not too much additional cost, and I suspect (although I don' have numbers for this) has paid for itself. It is possible for developing a 3 core vehicle to make sense.

Someone should really do a detailed analysis of the differences between Falcon Heavy and Delta Heavy development. I'm curious what big differences they would find.
Wait, ∆V? This site will accept the ∆ symbol? How many times have I written out the word "delta" for no reason?

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion
« Reply #571 on: 06/30/2020 05:52 pm »
Well, since this is still a speculation thread.  What about a 3 core heavy version of New Glenn.  100+ tons to LEO.  No new rocket or engine development, except maybe a larger upper stage for multiple BE-3U's, and the development of a stronger center core like FH had to do.  The upper stage could be a minimum of 4 BE-3U's and 1 BE-3 center engine for a reusable upper stage to land. 

However, using the same engines like SpaceX, and new wider rocket would probably be easier or better.
3 core LVs gain high performance by having middle booster deliver 2nd stage most of way to LEO. Which is fine on ELV but on RLV the middle booster now has lot of DV to scrub off for recovery.

Also need 3 landing barges or ships to make most of LV. Having FHR side boosters return to pad costs it lot of performance.

For high flights really want all 3 cores staging at same time and landing down range. In end you have 3 boosters operating in parallel to do same job as one big booster, which has lower dry mass and is cheaper to maintain.

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1494
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 576
  • Likes Given: 541
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion
« Reply #572 on: 06/30/2020 06:03 pm »
Someone should really do a detailed analysis of the differences between Falcon Heavy and Delta Heavy development. I'm curious what big differences they would find.

Start with Delta IV was a finished design before doing Heavy and Falcon 9 was not.

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5364
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2679
  • Likes Given: 3090
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion
« Reply #573 on: 06/30/2020 09:28 pm »
Delta IV heavy is expendable.  FH is not.  That could be part of the design problem.  R-7 (Soyuz) has 4 drop off stages, and it has made 100's of flights.  Again, all expendable.  Making the rocket reusable, including the heavier beefed up core is probably expensive. 

Offline lonestriker

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Houston We've Had A Problem
  • Liked: 820
  • Likes Given: 5155
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion
« Reply #574 on: 06/30/2020 11:22 pm »
Blue would be foolish not to "borrow" as much as they can from SpaceX, both in terms of ideas and personnel for NA.  I suspect NG will not deviate substantially from their initial plans given that there are very large bits of long-lead-time infrastructure that are being built.  But, once they get NG into orbit they can start borrowing SpaceX's "test after your primary mission is complete" approach, so they can work on second stage recovery.  With the experience of launching, recovering, refurbishing NG S1, they can either upgrade NG to v1.1 or keep NG as stable as possible and design NA concurrently.  They'll need all of that experience and data to inform them of NA specs.

My speculation for NA?  It's at least 5 years out before we see metal being bent.  I'd give even odds that it takes them 10 years before NA flies at the earliest.  If NA isn't fully reusable a la Starship, I'd eat my hat (Elon's has until 2023 before his hat has to be eaten before another HLV flies an NSS payload.)
« Last Edit: 06/30/2020 11:52 pm by Chris Bergin »

Offline Chris Bergin

Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Tags:
 

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